Some Sage Advice

A couple of days ago a reader left the following complaint as a lengthy comment. It was off-topic and inappropriate for the post where it was submitted, so I never approved it.

Despite its abrasive and antagonistic tone, this comment raises issues that are worth discussing:

  • Are liberals and progressives justified in feeling excluded by the overwhelmingly conservative bias on display at most Counterjihad websites?
  • Should we do more to welcome left-wingers who want to resist the spread of Islam?
  • Should we avoid discussing political and social hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage, the redistribution of income, global warming, the public expression of Christianity, etc., so as not to offend left-socialists who disagree with us on most topics but oppose shariah?

NOTE: I object to the tone of the following remarks, but I am reproducing the text here as-is so that the writer’s concerns may be brought to the attention of our readers. I expect any responses in the comments to adhere to a better standard of civility and decorum. One may discuss the pros and cons of these issues without resorting to this level of invective:

Did you ever consider that the reason why the Counter-Jihad is floundering so badly is because of CONSERVATIVES like you?

I’m a (mostly) LIBERAL Counter-Jihadist and I get to see this ugly (and stupid) right wing crap every day while I read through the stories linked to TROP. I get to see a valid story about creeping islam followed by the most ridiculous tripe right from the butts of the Koch Brothers and Rupert Murdoch on sites like Front Page and American Thinker.

If I didn’t know the true nature of islam I would look at the articles on sites like those and immediately assume that the truth is the OPPOSITE of whatever they say. For a long time, if I didn’t know which way to vote on an issue I would just look up Machelle [sic] Bachman’s [sic] position and then vote the EXACT opposite. When I realized that she was also a Counter-Jihadist my head almost exploded. I spent a couple months reading the quran, sirah, and hadith just to MAKE SURE what I believed about islam is true (it is).

It’s also pretty obvious that the Counter-Jihad is being funded and pushed by a few front organizations that are rabidly pro Israel and pro Christian. Even though EVERYTHING they say about islam is 100% true, a lot of people who don’t care about Israel, and actively HATE Christians, are turned off by those links and agendas.

How many times have I read about the evils of islam from Raymond Ibrahim only to click the next article about the evils of abortion? Does he ever consider that some of us are ABSOLUTELY PRO CHOICE? It never even registers to Ibrahim that taking away a woman’s CHOICE makes her EXACTLY like a muslim woman.

I laugh when I read these right wing sites when they talk about ‘Christians under seige [sic]’ in America. I’ve learned the hard way NOT to drink while reading these inverse reality gems lest I shoot liquid out my nose. There are 50 to 100 MILLION Christians in America and EVERY chance they get they try to ram their agenda down the rest of our throats, EXACTLY LIKE MUSLIMS DO. Weather[sic] it’s closing abortion clinics, forcing women to have degrading VAGINAL ultrasounds, putting the ten commandments on PUBLIC land, teaching creationism in schools, or making all our TV shows only fit to be watched by 6 year olds. Christians are not under siege in America. America is under siege by Christians.

Even liberals who KNOW that islam is evil have to weigh weather[sic] they want to oppose something that is mostly confined to the other side of the earth (for Americans) or the very REAL threat from Christo-Fascists-Dominionists that currently infest every branch of the gerrymandered ultra insane Republican party. Even pro business libertarian Republicans have noted, with dismay, the infiltration by the ‘Christo-Crazy’.

So go ahead and write some more ‘funny’ articles about how Alaska succeeded from America because of ‘evil’ Obamacare, or how ‘socialism’ will destroy America. Make sure that the ONLY people who read this site are white conservative Christians. Everybody knows that white conservative Christians really need a ‘good’ reason to hate brown non-Christians, and to resist Sharia law.

As a mostly liberal I just read, wait, and watch you (and others) spin your wheels in futility (mostly self inflicted). I know in my heart that the CJ will flounder uselessly UNTIL something big happens like Paris burning to the ground, or a city being nuked, or a REAL WMD attack in the west. When the liberals FINALLY take up the CJ cause they will pretend like you (and others) NEVER existed, and they will congratulate themselves on how righteous they are for standing up to ‘intolerant’ islam.

As you turn purple and stroke out from apoplexy in the background they will say with an absolutely straight face how they’ve ‘always’ been against intolerant islam and how it’s now ‘acceptable’ to hate muslims as much as we (liberals) hate Christians.

Have your blood pressure pills ready…

P.S. If you’re not getting some of that right wing / pro Israel money, perhaps you just need to put your hand out? The CAIR article about where SOME of the CJ money comes from was too nauseating left wing / pro islam (even for me) to finish. There’s nothing wrong with getting paid to do what you already doing (for free).

166 thoughts on “Some Sage Advice

  1. I don’t know how to begin to ‘fisk’ this individuals’ rantings.

    regarding the 3 questions you ask

    1. no

    2. no

    3. no

    Individuals like the one who wrote this screed exclude themselves because they cannot tolerate different ideas. They cannot tolerate freedom of speech that is not their approved speech. NO one excludes them, they choose to exclude themselves.

    • To expand and clarify a bit on those answers:

      Liberals and progressives are genuinely excluded by the overwhelmingly conservative bias on display at most Counterjihad websites. However, their feelings are not justified, because such feelings arise from the cognitive dissonance associated with having their ignorance and prejudices challenged by reality.

      We most not welcome left-wingers who want to resist the spread of Islam. It would be fatal to the cause of the CounterJihad, which is not mere opposition to Islam but an effort to preserve the vitality and future of Western Civilization. Since left-wingers are only opposed to Islam insofar as they regard it as a threat to their own efforts to destroy our civilization’s values and accomplishments, there can be no room for them in the CounterJihad.

      The CounterJihad cannot avoid discussing political and social hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage, the redistribution of income, global warming, the public expression of Christianity, and other such relevant topics surrounding the various attacks on the integrity of Western Civilization. Even if it were desirable not to offend left-socialists who disagree with us on most topics but oppose shariah, it is a simple logical impossibility to defend Western Civilization without defending Western Civilization.

      On a more practical level, the left-wingers, being largely incapable of breaking free of their group-think, already are being told that Islam is wonderful and perfect by their own leaders. The statement that “For a long time, if I didn’t know which way to vote on an issue I would just look up Machelle [sic] Bachman’s [sic] position and then vote the EXACT opposite” is a simple lie. Rank and file left-wingers do not lack for instructions telling them how to vote, they don’t need to look up conservative points of view, nor do they lest the exposure to doubleplusungood thoughtcrime undermine their sense of moral purity as devoted party members. The fundamental premise of the complaint is that left-wingers don’t like being exposed to conservative arguments, and avoid them. This directly contradicts the idea that many of them read such material on a regular basis (anyone that has seen liberals commenting on an article written from a conservative point of view can attest that they cannot have actually read it in any meaningful sense).

      This very post, from what you say, falls into the same category. It was posted on the site under an article to which it had no bearing because the writer does not read ANY of the articles on this site. It is not a sincere attempt to ask that the defense of Western Civilization be made more palatable to left-wingers but an attempt to sabotage that defense. This is what we have to accept about people who have utterly forsaken reason and honesty…they are going to be dishonest and unreasonable.

      • Bingo.

        The real enemy of Western Civilization is the OP commenter. Islam is just along for the ride hoping to claim part of the loot.

      • Yes, Chiu! This guy is just spouting liberal taqiyya with the false promise that, if Western Christians just STOP talking about the destructiveness of the liberal religion, that liberals will eventually (!) band together against Islam (just like those mythical moderate Muslims that liberals import – and support – will band together against the Muslim extremists). Note the future tense indicated by the word ‘will.’ This is simply an implementation of a form of Sharia Law imposed on Christians by liberals in which ‘Thou shalt NOT say anything that reflects negatively upon the liberal religion (which now actively persecutes Christianity and promotes Islam).’

        Interestingly, the same liberals who will eventually (!) band together against Islam are completely cohesive in their current destruction of Christianity and traditional Western culture, values, and mores. It appears that, as I have said for years, the final battle will be between atheists/communists (liberals) and Muslims. As liberals progress to a significant societal point in dismantling the Christian milieu, liberals will seek to recruit disenfranchised Christians into their camp against Muslims – as if liberals own the camp instead of Christians – as if liberals are doing Christians the ‘favor’ of accepting Christians. So it begins.

        For now, some small amount of liberals need to provide a cover of fake condemnation of Islam because the evil fruits of Islam are so obvious to all. So, out trots a self-proclaimed anti-Islam liberal to give cover to the millions of ‘moderate’ liberals who are actively enabling the self-identified ‘religion of peace’ to murder and enslave us all – unless the liberals get there first and do it better.

        Here is an EXCELLENT article about the recent World Vision scandal that addresses the question of ‘Are you a Christian or are you a liberal?’ and the topic of liberal infiltration into Christian cultural groups in order to subvert their fundamental beliefs:

        P.S. Hi Hesperado! I think that you will enjoy the above article.

  2. The guy has a point. I was somewhat left-of-center until I began to feel the Islamic pressure waves. Finding out what was happening, and who was enabling it, pulled me rightward, politically. But I still find I have little in common with most CounterJihadists other than the deep anxiety about the spread of subservience to Islam by, mostly-left-wing, governments. I suspect that there is a large fraction of people, moderate left of center, who are privately very worried about the threat of Islam and they have no home.

    • People that hate Christians are in a bind, because the Left where people that hate Christendom and seek it’s destruction organize politically, has invited Muslims (who also hate Christendom) to participate in the dismantling of Christendom.

      Cry me a river.

      The only difference between you and the Muslims is whom gets to build their Zeitgeist on the ash heap of my once great civilization and nation states.

      [vulgar invective redacted]

    • Martin,

      I know exactly what you mean, although, to be fair, this isn’t just an issue with cj sites; holding views which cross the left / right divide seems to confuse the hell out of ‘purists’ on both sides. On a single issue it is not unusual for me to be simultaneously viewed as a raving Nazi and a bed-wetting liberal for having the temerity not to subscribe to group-think. Recently all hell broke loose on a usually intelligent conservative site when I politely suggested that referring to ALL feminists as man-hating lunatics might be off-putting to people like me who believe in the original aims of feminism (equal treatment, opportunity etc. for women and girls) but feel equally queasy about the feminist-lunatic fringe. I once tried, equally politely, suggesting to one of the writers on this site that constant reference to ‘Tards’ re-enforced stereotypes about counter-jihadists being racist, gave ammo to critics and potentially scared away allies. The comment was moderated away.

      • I’m glad to see that your comment here hasn’t been moderated away. There is a whole, continuous spectrum of opinion with regard to politics and it is not a one-dimensional continuum either. The threat posed by Islamic striving is, however, so immediate and so critical that it transcends all the ancient enmity between Left and Right. Everything, everything but opposing this juggernaut, has to go on the back burner or there won’t be anything left to save.
        Above, Chiu ChunLing writes: “However, their [Liberals’] feelings are not justified, because such feelings arise from the cognitive dissonance associated with having their ignorance and prejudices challenged by reality.” This, to me, reads “I hate Liberals so much that not even the prospect of defeating the Jihadists will induce me to tolerate their presence.” It will be a noble fight, Chiu ChunLing, shining armor, disdainful of potential allies, one against the hordes. But it is also an immensely stupid and futile one.

        • I disagree. First, Chiu’s description of a situation is NOT the same as Chiu’s hating the participants in the situation (i.e., many counter jihadists claim to hate Islam but NOT Muslims), so your initial interpretation is flawed. Second, the situation here is much like that of liberals who ruin one state by proposing and imposing bad policies – and then, instead of changing their bad policies and fixing the ruined state, the liberals (who are able) simply run away from the first state – leaving it to stew in its misery – and move to the next state to wreak their havoc.

          If you let liberals control the dialogue of the counter jihad with the main goal being to avoid ‘hurting’ delicate liberal sensibilities, you will find yourself without a counter jihad movement at all.

        • Agreed! Many right-wing counter-jihadis seem to hate liberals every bit as much as they hate Islam — and that’s just ridiculous!

          I have major problems with the worldview of conservative Christians, but I would never equate them to the likes of the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, the Ayatollahs, or the Wahhabis. (Or any devout Muslim who understands what his or her religion is supposed to be about, for that matter.)

          Islam poses a MUCH greater threat to Western Civilization than ANY other ideology. Nothing else comes close. We should all be able to agree on that.

      • So true! Very few people on the left or the right seem to be able to think for themselves and examine each each on its own merits. I encounter this problem a lot, as an environmentalist and (reluctant) Democrat who thinks guns are cool and Islam is not.

        Groupthink sucks!

    • Socialist ideals are the basis of the underestimation of the Islamic threat. The way the role of the government and human nature is perceived by definition causes the left to be optimistic about Islam.

    • I agree, Martin. The writer was spewing a lot of bile in his commentary; but in spite of that, he does make some valid points.

  3. The writer has two problems:

    1. He hates. He cannot understand us who do not hate, not even our enemies. We use our logic and good judgement.

    2. He does not see the parallells between islam and socialism, or liberalism as exercised by the Democrats. They are both totalitarian by heart.

    Our society is built on the principles of Christianity. The late sliding towards socialism is contrary to several of these principles. Therefore it is natural for christians and counter-jihadists to be conservative,

    • Well, those aren’t his only problems. He’s also a screamer, as you can see from the many capitalized words. You would likely have spittle on your glasses if this were a person-to-person monologue.

      Telling him that Western culture was built on Christian principles will simply bring on another screaming fit since it’s obvious this is an excitable boy.

      He’s waiting for the West’s wake-up call – like the burning down of Paris – before he thinks liberals will be moved to act. One would think the destruction of the Two World Trade Center Towers in New York City would be a sign that things are headed on a very destructive path.

      He feels (not ‘thinks’ – he doesn’t present any evidence for these feelings) that the Christians are out to get him and his freedoms. Notice it’s all Christians when in fact many of them are more liberal than he and spin their interfaith wheels in “dialogue” with Muslims. Chrislam is one of those.

      Even though sharia law says clearly to all faithful Muslims to practice taqiyya and kitman against us ‘harbis’ until it is safe to kill us- we’re unclean, right down to our fingernails. Not to worry: just say the shahada and all your bodily secretions and excretions are magically cleansed.

      The liberal obsession with the Koch Brothers is fascinating. George Soros is far wealthier and more influential than the two Kochs, and he deliberately, with malice aforethought, spends his money on destabilizing other countries – Ukraine, for example. He has said he despises all of Eastern Europe…

      Soros fully admits his complicity in various financial ruination schemes, too – e.g., what he did in England and France. So a few thousands of pensioners were wiped out? Big deal. He won. Yet it is the bodily products of the Koch Bros which seems to preoccupy and enrage this person. A sure sign of emotional regression, and a common problem for the Left…the down-shouters like this one learned their rhetorical tactics in the school yard and never grew up.

      After they take out Israel, which Iran credibly says it will do, they’ll have to move on to other countries. They are followers of the 12th Imam and don’t hold with any rational rules. After 600 years they are near their goal…but this fellow won’t pay attention until Iran flattens Paris??

      And we’re supposed to believe at that point he’ll stoop to join the -ugh- creepy counter jihad??

      Sure he will…

      What is more likely is that when some Western country he feels is more “like him” is felled, this guy will learn the Shahada in no time flat and pick up his scimitar on the way out the door. Who could resist the lure of being on the winning side and having the opportunity to kill all those eeevil Christians? But why wait? He could go to Egypt or Africa or Syria or Iraq right now and start sawing off Christian heads by the bucketload. Christians who are far more conservative than the ones he’ll meet in this country.

      I never saw a better example of a proto-Islamist than this poor fellow has presented here…he’ll make a great polemicist for the Muslim overlords when they’ve finally infiltrated far enough. Lots of dragon fire, little light.

      • Having considered myself “left-wing” since the mid-1970s (brought up by a church-going Trotskyite — go figure!), I still considered myself left-wing 6 years ago, when I started to learn about islam, all the better to defend muslim immigrants in Britain.

        Learning about islam was the most traumatic mental experience of my life. I came to understand what I had previously assumed could not be so bad — it must only have been a few fundamentalists who were ignoring the modernized islam. It was the realisation that islam cannot be modernised (that it was the rejection of christianity as a modernisation of the bronze-age values contained in the Old Testament).

        I looked around me to find fellow Leftists who were opposing islamisation, and found they did not exist. When the EDL came along, I started to look at them to see if they were what the media described them as, and realised they were not. They weren’t Leftist, but they were not “right-wing”. They had no politics other than opposing any efforts to turn Britain into an islamic country.

        But most Leftists are simply bigoted, and will not make the effort to understand these issues. And if they do understand them, they are such cowardly sheep, they will not debate them with their Leftist peers. Consequently, most Leftists will not join this fight.

        We saw this in Britain, with the demise of the self-styled “anti-fascists”.

        Back in 2010, with massive support from trade unions, all main political parties, and support from the universities and the media, the UAF could get as many people on an EDL demo as we EDL could get. But over the following 12 months, the support for UAF evaporated. And this support evaporated, despite the fact that every year universities have a new bunch of gullible students who traditionally could be roused to “join the fight to stop the fascists”. Despite having the time, and the supposed ideological commitment, and free coaches to bus them to demos across the country, the UAF could no longer manufacture these opposing demos. Even middle-aged trade unionists started questioning why they were going along to demonstrate in support of homophobia, “honour” killings, FGM, etc. The EDL has received no recognition for it, but they transformed the intellectual debate in Britain (as is proven by statistical analysis of newspaper reports and even criminal prosecutions ).

        The UAF had to change their tactics, and manufacture supposedly “local” opposition to an EDL demo (thus, when such opposition failed, the UAF did not have to acknowledge they had no support).

        The Left have spent 30 years defending the indefensible. And now, their chickens are coming home to roost. All across Europe, the Left will end up going into the political margins.

        The journey I’ve made over these last 6 years, has meant that I will now describe myself as “right wing”. And by that I mean I support the world-view of people like Ludwig von Mises and Hayek and even Samuel Francis and Paul Gottfried.

        In my opinion, the counter-revolution against Leftist ideology has got a long way to go. Leftism may still make a comeback in Europe as Fascism or National Socialism. Most Leftists would become Nazis rather than take the journey I’ve taken, and spend the time understanding why it was that the Left were prepared to spend 30 years defending islamo-nazism.

        • I for one have really appreciated your posts Joe. (especially analysis on the EDL and the Left)

          I have had a fascination with Neo-Cons and Decent Leftists for over a decade now. I find the journey that these people take fascinating (and useful on a practical level for how one would go about persuading Leftists to go Neo-Con). I realize that many Neo-Cons still hold their old Leftist views on many issues. Some identify them as Trotskyists even.

          Jews are famous for NeoConism.

          David Horowitz
          Ron Radosh
          Charles Krauthammer
          Roger Simon

        • There are some leftists who are against the prevailing Islamophilia. Nick Cohen and Paul Berman come to mind. I also think that the book Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here, by an Algerian feminist (Karima Bennoune), tells the left exactly what is wrong with their ridiculous alliance with Muslim fundamentalists.

  4. I wonder how old this person is? As someone who’s long been on the Left on many issues, I might have been so bold as to proffer similar advice when in my twenties, though I’d not have been gratuitously offensive; with age, and perhaps a little wisdom, I’ve long appreciated that there are many decent and sincere people whose views differ from mine, and some of them comment here and on other sites (as well as a few I’d regard as cranks)- and also some on the Left I’d think twice about saving from drowning (see above).

    Since you’ve been kind enough to print most of what I’ve submitted, how could I feel excluded? If I need affirmation, I’ll listen to the BBC, read the Guardian, or just talk to most of the people I know. I find it beneficial and stimulating to exchange ideas with those with whom I disagree; it forces me to reevaluate my positions. In the case of Israel, it’s made my previously lukewarm support stronger as I’ve been moved to study the history.

    The comment on funding is obviously way off the mark so far as GoV is concerned, as this person must know if he’s a regular, and if he’s suspicious or unhappy about the finances of other organisations he should challenge them.

    The line “as much as we (liberals) hate Christians” is revelatory of this person’s character (I don’t even hate Muslims, just their ideology). You don’t need my advice, but it would be to ignore him. If you should feel it necessary to restrict the range of topics anyway, I’d be sorry, but it’s your site.

    • Hi Mark

      I really appreciate your contributions to this site, in many ways you are a breath of different fresh air. To maintain a semblance of balance requires (reasoned) opposition and you are part of that balance mechanism.

      I believe that “capitalism with soup-kitchens” is a better philosophy than enforced redistribution of wealth, but there is still the ‘soup-kitchen’ problem whatever we do; Hope fo Sderot (I work there as a volunteer) gives out food bags, I would guess that 80% of our cliental need them and 20% are just ‘takers’ and will go for anything ‘free’. We can either obcess about the 80% (left), obcess about the 20% (right) or somehow accept that both are inevitable in a free society and keep up the good work.

      • Thank you, kind sir. Given your recent post about incoming rockets, this truly is “grace under fire”!

        You recently mentioned having moved your family from Britain to Israel as you felt unsafe here. If it’s not an intrusive question, and the Baron will forgive me for going OT, was this due to antisemitism or another factor? I have Jewish friends, and an inlaw, who don’t see any immediate threat.

        • In a way, my family moved me, one must remember that those Jews who survived were the ones that got out early, and that UK left-Islamism and the nascent Nazism of early thirties Germany are very similar in their aims and hatreds.

          My daughter was the first to leave, she had first hit the brick wall of anti-Semitism at a very famous public school to which she had won a scholarship. One of the girls discovered her Jewish background and my daughter became a non-person at the age of thirteen. It took her two years to get over that. She did Arabic at Uni, doing her year out in Damascus, she went out pro-Palestinian and returned pro-Israel. She was the asked to go to Basra as an interpreter, on her return she was blackballed by the University.

          My sons had similar experiences, I would say that if Jews in UK keep to their ’emotional ghetto’ and only do the things ‘expected’ of Jews then the anti-Semitism will be minimal, but if one does not “know one’s place” then things quickly get out of hand. This however is changing, as the left and Islam together get more and more “anti-Zionist” (a fascistic ‘codeword’ not unlike “Sonderbehandlung”)

          I followed my children across, and yes, the open hostility centred on Sderot is preferable to the snide ‘joo hatred’ one gets in the UK. Don’t get me wrong, the missiles are dangerous and extremely annoying; but here, if anything goes really wrong I will die with the enemy in front of me (I am a good shot), not stabbing me in the back.

      • I largely agree with that. I just think that the soup kitchens should be left up to private citizens and organizations, not government. (and in the US certainly not the Federal Govt., any involvment in that sort of thing should be at the Local Govt level, or at maximum the State level. The closer to “the people” on the ground, the better.

  5. The comment is so target-rich I’d have to fill pages to respond but I can’t waste the time on the likes of such a person, except to say he or she reminds me of Adam Weinstein’s sneering article on Gawk.comer calling for all global warming skeptics to be arrested. Where winning the argument means eliminating thee competition. “We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars” This came from

    Today’s liberals have absolutely nothing in common with the classical liberalism of Thomas Jefferson and Frederic Bastiat. Today they resemble, well there’s no other word for it. Fascists. The manner in which this poster rendered his judgement makes me just want to avoid these type people. They are too toxic to bother with.

  6. Firsly, thanks for giving us liberal CJs at least a little corner, Baron and Dymphna.

    Despite the poster’s tone and spelling (‘weather’ for ‘whether’??), in many regards he is right. (I’d never even heard of “degrading VAGINAL ultrasounds”. Here’s a woman who felt as though it was state-sponsored rape: Reminiscent of the Egyptian ‘virginity tests’.)

    I still read and post here after years, because at least GoV and Robert Spencer etc provide news on the main issue: islam.

    Let’s see where this liberal CJ stands in relation to the poster’s points:

    “LIBERAL Counter-Jihadist” – tick
    “I See a valid story about creeping islam followed by the most ridiculous tripe” – tick, sometimes
    “If I didn’t know the true nature of islam I would … assume that the truth is the OPPOSITE of whatever they say.” – tick
    “A lot of people who don’t care about Israel, and actively HATE Christians, are turned off by those links and agendas.” – I do care bout Israel. I don’t actively hate Christians, just want them to leave me alone and not push silly creationist agendas in schools.
    “Does he ever consider that some of us are ABSOLUTELY PRO CHOICE?” – tick
    “taking away a woman’s CHOICE makes her EXACTLY like a muslim woman.” – I wouldn’t go that far, by a long shot. I’m pro-choice, but being forced to live in a body bag and never drive or go out alone is not exactly like not being allowed abortion.
    “When the liberals FINALLY take up the CJ cause they will pretend like you (and others) NEVER existed, and they will congratulate themselves on how righteous they are for standing up to ‘intolerant’ islam.” – Alas, I sometimes don’t think they will wake up. They would rather melt than admit that not all cultures are equally good …

    So what’s my conclusion? We all have different points of view. I can’t agree fully with this liberal, nor with any creationists that might be lurking here.

    But can’t that be our strength? Islam is intolerant towards ALL OF US. Sharia would murder my gay friends, whip my partner and me for ‘fornication’, then murder us for ‘blasphemy’ (we’re atheists), turn committed Christians and Jews into dhimmis, attack them as we’re seeing in islamic countries, destroy Israel (despite the poster’s points re Israel, does he really want its destruction??), destroy freedom for all of us.

    Baron and Dymphna, please keep up the good work and let us all talk, from our various perspectives, about the main issue: intolerant islam.

    • These issues are all distractions. Liberals apparently can’t shift their attention from their list of hot, hot issues long enough to focus on a single, actual threat that is growing more menacing every day. “We won’t do anything ourselves. It’s up to the hateful Christians and conservative counter jihadis to ditch all of their principles to conform to the liberal paradise first. Once lib orthodoxy has been embraced, then, and only then, will the liberals deign to dip a toe in the CJ movement. In the meantime, we won’t do anything ourselves because it’s up to the conservatives to do all the spadework first.”

      This choleric, ill-educated, foul-mouthed commenter needs to find himself an acceptable liberal CJ site and dive in, rather than moaning how our sites just make him so cross. I don’t refer to you Guest but your still energized about importing irrelevant issues. If you want to contribute ideas and money to GoV you are free to do so. You’re free to start your own CJ site where you don’t have to worry about secondary infections. You can have complete control. But no. You want to rehash the liberal [material I find offensive and nonsensical] and won’t raise a finger to do anything yourself.

      Someone who actually writes drivel like “REAL threat from Christo-Fascists-Dominionists that currently infest every branch of the gerrymandered ultra insane Republican party. Even pro business libertarian Republicans have noted, with dismay, the infiltration by the ‘Christo-Crazy’” isn’t entitled to the time of day.

      • Exactly.

        I might suggest Harry’s Place (though it is foreign to this US Leftwing drone)….but Harry’s Place is widely demonized by the vast majority of the Left.

        What this clown doesnt seem to understand is that the Western Left is driven by Marxists and these folks are interested in one thing, the destruction of European Christendom. All “Others” will be agitated against them (including Muslims) and via mass immigration of Third Worlders and Muslims.

        Islam is ONLY a threat to Western individuals because of the Western Left’s successful implementation of their agenda. There were 2 mosques in the United States in 1960 (and one was a courtesy mosque to service Muslim foreign ministers and diplomats in Washgington DC built in the 2nd decade of the 20th century, now their are over 2000.


      • “You want to rehash the liberal material” – huh? I was saying we need to work together instead of being separated by our politics. What on earth are you on about?

  7. I think Errbe has some good points. The writer of the screed in question needs to moderate his hatred, incivility and invective and he also needs to exercise some of the much-vaunted liberal tolerance if he wants to join an anti-Islamist movement under some kind of big tent.

    It’s too bad that he does not appear to have any tolerance for those who have opinions with which he does not agree.

    Too bad that liberals are so intolerant and hate-filled.

  8. I may well flesh out my commentary at a later time or a later date. For now, I wanted to call attention to a sociopolitico-cultural phenomenon that remains under-appreciated (if not wholly ignored), yet which is a crucial factor in these important meta-discussions/analyses concerning the “battle space of the war of ideas” (as Frank Gaffney so aptly put it).

    There has developed a new kind of “Leftist”. This new kind of Leftist is a curious subspecies, yet quite common — indeed, more prevalent than the normative Leftist. It also seems to remain virtually invisible to the Counter-Jihad, in a forest-for-the-trees sort of way.

    Many qualities make this new kind of Leftist curious. Perhaps the one quality most curious is that this new kind of Leftist IS NOT A LEFTIST.

    I.e., in our ongoing seat-of-our-pants political science, we must stretch out our terminology, in order to better describe actual data: to wit, that the majority of Conservatives and Centrists throughout the West, from all social classes and representing Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, (even a few) New Agers, while they may be conservative about other sociopolitical issues, suddenly become politically correct multiculturalists when their hypersensitive antennae detect the slightest indication of someone in their vicinity becoming too critical of Muslims.

    Because of this curious, yet (unfortunately massive) phenomenon, I have taken to using the term PC MC (Politically Correct Multi-Culturalist) to denote this new breed of Non-Leftist Leftist.

    • Nice post, but I think you’ll find “CM PC” as more correct. “Cultural Marxist Political Correctness” being its true name. I never abbreviate and always use the full name, because anything else is deceptive. Once people see the full name they start to understand where it came from, what it is, and where it is taking us. So I highly recommend only using the term “Cultural Marxist Political Correctness” rather than “PC” or any other euphemism.

      • Bingo.

        Cultural Marxism is the AIDS. Islam is merely the Tuberculous taking advantage of a weakened Host (European Christendom).

        • And bingo back to you, EscapeVelocity.

          Perfect analogy, but now that you’ve knocked on that door, so to speak, are you going to enter in? That is, face the next logical question this analogy begs to be asked; if PCMC or Cultural Marxism is the cultural/memetic equivalent of AIDS, then what is the corresponding cultural/memetic equivalent of the HIV virus?

          AIDS by itself is not a disease; it is rather the reference term used to describe the collapse of a person’s immune system in response to the exposure to the HIV virus. But since the HIV virus does its damage because its host-of-choice is the human body’s own T-cells, we are then lead to ask the next logical question, what might be the corresponding cultural/memetic equivalent of our immune system’s T-cells?

          The challenge is that one can’t go down this line of thinking as long as one chooses to use the language of the political theorist.

          How often have you heard someone comment that some bureaucratic entity has taken on a life of its own? People are instinctively aware of this phenomenon, but no one seems to want to take their observation to its next logical conclusion.

          The leap of insight needed to take this alternate path comes with the realization that, from the point of view of A.I., a collective or distributed system (be it an ant colony or a human society) can satisfy all of the criteria necessary to be considered a living, conscious, intelligent, and capable-of-learning entity in its own right.

          If one can grok this concept of a collective or distributed life (form/consciousness/intelligence), then one can jettison the language of politics and use the language of the biologist or A.I. theorist to describe what’s going on.

          Thinking in this way, we see that our friend, the OP, is actually a carrier of our memetic HIV-equivalent PCMC virus and the exclusion he feels, coming from the C.J. movement, is just the immune response of a healthy cultural meme-set kicking in and doing its job.

          • Wildiris —

            Yes, exactly. I call this collective entity the “World Mind”. By its very nature, no individual human or group of humans can fully understand it. We can only deduce its existence (tentatively) from the observation of massive historical processes that might otherwise seem inexplicable.

            Physical signs of the World Mind include the transmission lines of the continental electric grid, microwave tower relay networks, natural gas pipelines, container transport systems, massive oil tankers, the satellite net, the interstate highway system, and so on.

            These phenomena are so large and complex that no human mind or group of minds can understand their workings fully. We can only observe and deduce.

            If the World Mind has an observable purpose, it is the same as any other living organism: to maintain itself, protect its continued existence, and grow.

      • “Nice post, but I think you’ll find “CM PC” as more correct. “Cultural Marxist Political Correctness” being its true name. ”

        I’m afraid I must disagree. Your corrective precisely botches my point. While I did recommend that we stretch our political science terminology, your suggestion goes too far. It becomes preposterous, for example, to characterize the academic admirers of the philosopher Eric Voegelin (who was oft disparaged in academe for being too anti-Communist) as “Cultural Marxists”.

        • The evidence for the infirmity of the “Leftist-slash-Cultural Marxist” explanation is always to hand. Just five minutes after leaving this thread and scrolling down, I come across this from the interview of Andrew Bostom by Ed Driscoll:

          Referring to the myopia by the Obama administration of the Iranian threat against Israel and against us, Bostom says that the conservatives in Washington are not much better, particularly in their naive tendency to trust the “Green Revolution” in Iran as proferring some kind of real “reformist” alternative:

          …the conservative alternative thus far, basically, with a few exceptions, has been well, look at the Green Revolution and the Green revolutionaries. And they offer an alternative to topple the regime and replace it with something, I guess, that supposedly represents certain secular traditions in the West.

          Again, there’s always worse. This is not as delusional as naked appeasement, which is the Obama administration policy. But there’s absolutely no evidence to support this hypothesis. And in fact, there’s countervailing evidence.

          The ideologues of the Green Movement you can identify and read their writings. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them and Khomeini on fundamental issues like the Jihad, like the application of the Sharia, like these heinous Shi’ite-specific regulations which deal with the physical impurity of the infidel, and with their Jew hatred.

          To then deal with this data by accusing the conservative establishment in Washington of being “Cultural Marxists” is absurd, and simply reveals that the diagnostic methodology is broken (if not also that the diagnostician has curious worldview problems of his own).

          • I disagree, cultural Marxism is simply a more detailed, pernicious ideology and has therefore moved many conservatives towards its orbit. There is no explanation of linking ‘PC’ decisions of conservatives to conservative thought. If so, I would like to know how you see these connections,

            Expanding on Voegelin would be appreciated too.

    • The entire political landscape has shifted to the left. Conservatives of today use the vocabulary of the left, and are concerned with typical leftist issues, like climate and racism. But because it has been slow and gradual, we do not percieve the change.

      • I disagree. It is more accurate to say that conservatives are forced to deal with the various fundamentalists and shysters who want to hijack what could have been a rational discussion and investigation about what constitutes genuine climate “change” and what is merely variations within a norm. We haven’t moved Left; rather the Left has gained ascendancy and has become ever more strident about pushing their beliefs into a box called “Consensus” and then telling everyone else to shut up. It’s not exactly “the tyranny of the majority” so much as it is the tyranny of those who have wrested the microphone away from everyone else. The link to the Commons Technology pdf I supplied yesterday shows clearly that these bureaucrats, drawing their living from the state, feel at liberty to shove their theories on everyone.

        Thanks to the Left’s beating on the drum of racism, the word has become the butt of many jokes – e.g., “does this dress make me look racist?” People respond to “that’s racist” with “that’s so 1990. Get a new cause”.

        The Left are a collection of nanny scolds. The more they natter on, the fewer people there are who believe them. Not for nothing has the website, Watts Up With That, won so many awards.

        Watts Up With That – scroll down the sidebar.

        The political class has moved left and left behind their former followers. You can clearly see this in the rise of the right in Europe. In the US there are a wide variety of grassroots conservative advocacy groups. Considering the powerful money interests arrayed against them, they’re doing a good job. But I repeat, the only move left has been by the political class and its attendant money suppliers.

  9. Correction “I do care about Israel.”

    Another point: when our enemies read this site, they would LOVE to see us arguing to the point of division about feminism, Christianity, political points: divide and rule.

    But often we take the ‘agree to disagree’ stance on other issues and always get back to the main point.

    We can present a united wall against the political ideology that is islam and take important facts from here and Spencer etc into comments on other sites closer to our own politics and beliefs (left, right, Christian, Jewish etc).

  10. He is really funny, calls our political inclinations ugly and stupid while he belives 100% in the stuff we tell about Islam, and than he says that he belives in the progressive policies promoted by people lying about Islam/multiculturalism all the time to fit their agenda. Dude needs a serious reality check.

    He is right about liberals lying about being “always against intollerant islam” just like democrats in general lie about “always being anti-segregation and pro civil rights”. He is basically a coward waiting for the muslims to kill enough people in Europe to be socially acceptable for a liberal to hate Islam, and not be shunned by his liberal friends just like the rest of us crazy intollerant racist xenophobic islamophobes right now.

    He lies about not caring for Israel. He hates Israel, because it is Jewish just as he hates Christians for being Christians. The people of Israel are part of our civilization and are under siege from the forces he claims to oppose, and he tells us he doesnt care if they live of die? He lies. He bought the “facist/racist Israel” leftie propaganda most likelly.

    He is, of course, wrong about the abortion issue, because in the West every woman already has a choice not to get pregnant (unlike in Islamic countries and most of the rest of the world), not giving that choice is a major crime called rape in the West (not so much elswere). That is more choice than any other civilization in history has ever given its women, and untill we find a way to safely transfer the child to an artificial womb, that is all the choice they have the right to make. Once the woman is pregnant the baby has the right to life, to do otherwise is sacrificing the life of the child for own benefit just like the Palestinians do when strapping their children with explosives to kill Jews.

    Our civilization is based on certain principles, “Judeo-Christian” principles. If those principles are ommited from public life, then there will be Islam in public life, it is just a matter of time. He is blind not to see that happening in Europe right now. He feels safe in the US, because he knows Islam will take down EU first and then his blind, deaf and silent liberal monkies in the leadership will wake up to save his ass (and without conservative, christian constitucionalists, he will also most likely get tyranny and progressive totalitarian state in the bargain). If liberals people hate christians and are succesfill in bringing Christianity down, they will get muslims in trade, who will give them the 3 choices: convert, submit or die- take your pick.

    In the end he is asking us to compromise the basic values of our civization for people not willing to be called names not willing to say the truth if it hurts them, blind enough to be on the same side of the political debate with progressives actively promoting Islam/multiculturalism/massive immigration and doing everything they can to bring our civilization down. He wants us to silence our criticisms of his religion called “liberal leftism/progressivism” (that is essential in enabling Islam in the West – without it, there would be no Islamic expansion in the West) thus making it victorious in the political debate in exchange a for wague promisse of protection and a threat of destruction if we get too uppity (because they “hate us” as he claims). Now where have I seen something like that before ………

    • He loves the lies that fit his hatred.

      I think the dude is young and on his first steps into becoming a Neo-Con (whom still hold to some Leftist ideas but have abandoned the Left’s project to destroy European Christendom). Likely, his hatred is merely a reflection of his indoctrination. But he didnt take the Blue Pill with regards to Islam, and that crack will be the undoing of much of his indoctrination. Islam is just so vile and objectionable, that it is a bridge to far.

      The Fraud of Multiculturalism by Mark Steyn

    • “He is basically a coward waiting for the muslims to kill enough people in Europe to be socially acceptable for a liberal to hate Islam, and not be shunned by his liberal friends ”


      I spent about 4 years trying to reach out to Leftists to educate them and get them to join the fight against islam as Leftists. They would privately tell me “I don’t dare say a critical word against islam, because it would be social suicide for me”. This remarks was from a lesbian feminist activist who muslims had threatened to kill! She was more concerned about being shunned at dinner parties, than she was of being killed by muslims for being a lesbian.

      And for those of you who don’t know, Peter Tatchell (just about the only Leftist in Britain who demonstrated against islamo-nazism in the 1990s), has now become “the Patron” of Tell Mama — the organisation which manufactures statistics on supposed “attacks” on muslims.

  11. And now more directly pertinent to the article above. The general issue as framed by Baron Bodissey is important; but this particular messenger featured by Bodissey here has through his words revealed himself to be outside the Big Tent of the Counter-Jihad.


    “There are 50 to 100 MILLION Christians in America and EVERY chance they get they try to ram their agenda down the rest of our throats, EXACTLY LIKE MUSLIMS DO. ”

    That is so colossally, grotesquely, offensively erroneous one is tempted to manhandle the utterer by the collar and toss him outside the Big Tent flaps on the sward in back among the honey buckets. Or, were I in a more generous mood, I might consider allowing my arm to be twisted to persuade me to allow him to sit in the corner of the Counter-Jihad Office by the coffee machine where he can keep his intemperate yap shut while he moistens envelopes with a sponge in preparation for our mass mailings, or xeroxes copies of our flyers, or does mind-numbing neck-stiffening data entry on a clunky old desktop computer from 9 to 5.

  12. I agree with what the original poster is saying. I’m sure there are some left wingers who have a slight awakening to the horrors of Islam but are turned off the idea when they see logical CJ arguments surrounded by material on websites that is so right wing and totally unrelated to the CJ. I am also largely liberal but am concerned for the future not only of the west but the entire free world with the creeping jihad. A site that just gives the facts about the situation that reaches out to everyone and says “no matter what your political affiliation, this is an issue that will effect us all, it needs to be taken seriously if you value freedom”. it’s about targeting the message at a broad audience and appealing to reason and logic without the next article giving the impression that the CJ is a bunch of right wing loons. We are up against a hostile media and efforts to counter the CJ. CJ Websites make it too easy to discount the movement as honestly curious left wingers will see the pro-gun, anti-left messge along side it and think “OK so my left wing commie uni professor and the media are right, these people are far right racists” because they already have such strong political opinions about those unrelated issues. We should be stating the message clearly to everyone. The core of the CJ message speaks across political affiliations, but it is lumped with one side of politics to its detriment.

    • Have you asked yourself: WHY is counter-jihad material on conservative sites?. Why is there nothing on Huffington Post and such? Most liberals are leftists/progressives, with political correctness and multiculturalism they enable the spread of Islam – they are the reason we are in this situation. For counter-jihad you need two things: ability to speek the truth regardless of whose feelings are hurt and who is offended and the understanding that all cultures are not equal, that ours is much better and that some deserve to be destroyed – how many liberals are willing to admit that?

      • Yes good point; however, I have found that most conservative venues are either indifferent to the problem of Islam, or only allow their no-nonsense selves to be tough against a safely cordonned-off Tiny Minority of “Extremists” and are afraid to inch their big toe toward the dreaded Islam word without softening it up with an “-ist” (and a “radical” and/or “extremist” or “hardline” for good measure).

        I have been censured, censored, and punished by several so-called conservative forums and chat rooms for the crime of bringing up the problem of Islam too robustly. So the non-Leftists still have a long way to go. (And this speaks to my first post above, which, of course, most here will not read, or will read and not digest.)

        • Hesperado —

          Yes, exactly right. National Review being the most notable case in point.

          I’m glad you brought up the Tiny Minority Fallacy. El Ingles methodically deconstructed that particular fallacy in this space five or six years ago. It would be a good idea to revisit the topic at some point.

          • Thanks Baron; I’ll take a look at that over the weekend.

            An important part of the reason why the TMOE persists as a stubbornly fashionable meme is that it often mutates like a virus into forms more acceptable to those who are otherwise averse to the original strain. Case in point: the “MINO” (Muslim In Name Only). As I wrote on my blog a while back:

            “…by simply repackaging the Moderate Muslim demographic as something else (while having the gall to pat oneself on the back as a no-nonsense hardliner): thus, the Lax Muslims will do; and the Muslims Who Don’t Know Their Own Islam also come in handy; as well as the Muslims Who Are Too Afraid To Come Out of the Secularist Closet — or more recently comes along the MINO (“Muslim In Name Only”, echoing the RINO, the “Republican In Name Only” or “false Conservative”).”

            The Mutation of the “Moderate Muslim”


    • AusAnon–

      These are good ideas, but they’re not our mission statement. Over our ~10 years of existence, we have stated that we value the fundamentals of Western culture, that we are on the side of Israel, and we are concerned about the cultural wasteland – what Patrick Moynihan predicted would be “the downward deviance and degradation” which would arise from an entitlement culture. He predicted this when Lyndon Johnson was cynically creating a “War on Poverty” and he was right; Poverty won that war hands down and the culture has continued to degrade.

      If you think it would be a good thing- the best thing- to have a website totally devoted to the Counter Jihad with absolutely no other issues involved, then perhaps you could build that site? If what you say is true, you would soon have crowds of “honestly curious left wingers” and would avoid attracting “a bunch of right wing loons”.

      It wouldn’t be a site I’d find helpful since the push against Islam is a push against a completely supremacist theocracy. A utopian juridical culture which states that it loves death more than life and firmly believes that lying, disguise, and betrayal are all acceptable – even admirable- when dealing with the harbi, the unclean.

      In the course of learning what the Counter Jihad is and what a life devoted to its principles means, I am prepared for the disapprobation of the lock-step media – another group which admits lying for the sake of a good cause is not wrong – and the leftwing commie uni professors who call anyone “racist” who disagrees with them. Thanks to their attacks, the word “racism” has become trite and useless. They have no creativity, no spirit, no love of truth…and their students may eventually learn that as the old world order crumbles…

      I wish you luck with your “Counter Jihad and Only Counter Jihad” website, but for the life of me I don’t see how you’ll do it.

    • “Honestly curious left wingers” who tolerates a commie professor and gives credence to his views and those of the media has nothing of value to contribute to anything, let alone the counter jihad. If those left wingers were honestly curious about anything they’d reject such an absurd prof and avoid the media like a plague. Someone should tell them about this thing call “the internet.” It’s truly amazing.

      Liberals who want to strap hang on sanitized, regularized conservative CJ sites are like the Byzantines. They couldn’t organize a defense against the Muslim savages and were beaten by them. And you are different how exactly?

      Go start your own CJ site that the progressives will flock to. If you don’t like the darkness, light a candle.

    • I agree what you are saying in most part. Understanding of the threat has naturally led me to more right leaning beliefs. At this stage I have a mix of both what might be considered left and right wing beliefs. Maybe this will change in the future. I find the concepts of freedom of speech, religion, expression all to be fundamental ideas which SHOULD be supported by the left. My understanding of classical leftist thought would suggest this at least. Somehow these basics are overlooked when it comes to the Jihad because of an overwhelming desire not to upset or offend anyone and because muslims are a minority in the west and appear to be under threat and needing of special protection. I think if those people can be shown that opposing the Jihad is to support freedom of thought, religion, speech and sexuality then hopefully some at least might wake up to the nonsense they’ve been fed about far right racists who just hate brown people for no reason. When I tell people what I think of the CJ they immediately think I’m some psycho racist.

      If I then ask “what race is Islam?” “How is resistance to this different from resistance to other oppressive ideologies?” “Isn’t the left supposed to be all about freedom and peace? How can you be a feminist and defend these ideas? Why then defend this evil?Because you’re afraid of offending someone? The left has offended many people defending basic rights in the past. Etc etc.” It becomes clear they haven’t considered these ideas because they have been turned off the whole idea because of the CJs affiliation with the so called “far right”. My point is not all leftists are morons, many have simply been fed a load of nonsense and need a friendly introduction to CJ ideas which largely appeal to some leftist ideals that still exist deep down but have been buried under modern PC double think madness.

      I don’t see any necessary link between CJ and being anti-abortion. You don’t NEED to be Christian to support the CJ. Yes, understanding the issue and some of the root causes will naturally lead to taking on some right of the center ideas but one doesn’t need to believe all of that to logically support the CJ.

      As for making a site just to communicate this, if I win the lotto it’s something I’d consider.

    • “I agree with what the original poster is saying. I’m sure there are some left wingers who have a slight awakening to the horrors of Islam but are turned off the idea when they see logical CJ arguments surrounded by material on websites that is so right wing and totally unrelated to the CJ”

      I know some very “far Left” people who were engaged in a variety of ways in the CJM, but whilst they had the ability to understand EDL for what it truly was (neither “Left” nor “Right”), they said they eventually gave up the fight, because they could not stand the rampant homophobia on sites like Gates of Vienna. (I know that the editorial line on this site is not one that particularly promotes homophobia, but there are often examples to be found among the commenters – and editorially I doubt that GoV would permit jew-hatred to creep into the comments the way that gay-hatred is permitted to creep in).

      My view is that EDL gave out very loud and clear signs that it was not anti-gay, was not racist, etc. but the Lefists did everything they could to conceal this. The Leftists effectively wanted EDL to become a racist, anti-gay organisation. On the whole, the Left preferred to transform EDL into the organisation they could more easily hate, than face the reality of what it was, and support it in that reality. This is why I have such admiration for someone like Tommy Robinson — even though his vision was being distorted and lied about, he fought battles within and without EDL to not let EDL become a racist, homophobic organisation. He never set out to invite gay people to join EDL, but once some did and were brave enough to advertise that yes, even gays supported EDL, Tommy realised there was no reason gays should not support EDL, and he set about making sure we would receive support.

      The example of EDL (or 4Freedoms, for that matter, or ICLA) not being “right wing” did nothing to stop the media and the Left from lying and getting prominent members sacked or imprisoned or otherwise demonised.

      I don’t expect to be able to stop people in the CJM from being homophobic. I think that at least one plank in the west surviving must be a return to repopulation by non-muslims, and a return to a fairer analysis of the relative values/evils of christianity versus islam. I’m not at all optimistic that we will not see a mirror image of the evils of islam arise in order to stop islam — I expect to see the battle lines in Europe being drawn between muslims AND something that will be indistinguishable from the cartoon version of Nazism (a white supremacist, homophobic, militaristic organisation – it may not have all the economic/social policies of National Socialism).

      Life in Europe will become untenable for gays, jews, blacks, etc. I hope I die of old age before this happens, but I doubt it.

      • ‘Rampant homophobia on sites like Gates of Vienna”

        Are we reading the same blog?
        I have never seen anything which I considered ”homophobic”.

        Life in Europe is becoming untenable for white Europeans. Blacks are completely fine.

      • European Christendom is gonna choose to live, just like Israeli Jews.

        And they will be hated for it.

      • Joe —

        You raise a good point. Sometimes we do get homo-haters here, and some of them are less than civil in voicing their opinions. You of course don’t see the ones that we decide have to be deleted — some of those are a nasty piece of work.

        Jew-hatred is somewhat different, for several reasons.

        First of all, Jews don’t have the option of not being Jewish. They can only try to hide the fact that they’re Jewish, if they want to escape persecution etc. And some of today’s Jew-haters are even more stringent than Hitler in their judgment as to whether someone is Jewish — they go beyond the Nuremberg Laws in their classificatory zeal. If they find even a single Jewish ancestor in a target’s family tree, that person is Jewish, and comes in for the full Rothschild-Protocols-NWO-they-control-the-world treatment.

        Gays, on the other hand, have made a “lifestyle choice”. Or at least that was the prevailing wisdom through most of my adult life; now I understand that there may be a “gay gene” or something similar. So maybe they are sort of a race…

        Second difference: the deranged hatred focused on Jews is at least an order of magnitude greater than that directed at gays. Did you notice that your comment elicited no spittle-flecked diatribes? And we didn’t have to delete any comments, either. In contrast, if this had been a “Jew thread”, and you’d said the equivalent things about Jews, we would have been deluged with lengthy screeds from the JQ people, a hundred or more follow-up comments, many of them too vile to publish.

        Gayness doesn’t bring out that intensity of reaction — yet. I suppose it may, someday.

        Thirdly, within living memory (just barely) there was a deliberate, systematic effort to exterminate all European Jews. The same is not true of gays.

        Yes, I know the Nazis sent homosexuals to the death camps, but those unfortunates did not rate the same monomaniacal attention that the Jews did. The Nazi attitude towards homosexuality was ambivalent at best, and bears an eerie resemblance to the Muslim one. According to some accounts, Hitler kept nancy boys in the dugouts of the Western Front during the Great War, and the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 was camouflage for killing off any remaining witnesses to the Führer’s homosexual behavior during those years. Ernst Röhm was supposedly the most important target — he is said to have attained and kept his lofty rank in the SA at least partly due to his having the goods on Hitler.

        The rest of my opinions on issues arising from the “culture wars” concerning gays are too long and complicated for me to go into in a comment. But you’ve made me think about formulating a longer response, perhaps for a post someday, and I thank you for that.

        • The ‘scientific’ establishment has tried – and failed – to find a ‘gay’ gene for quite a while. And, conveniently, voila (!), the ‘scientific’ establishment under our ‘allegedly’ gay commander in chief who point blank FORCED all of the leaders of the major branches of the military to accept gays or be summarily dismissed from service – well, that ‘scientific’ establishment funded largely by our federal government and proven to ‘manipulate’ information for the ‘greater’ good, has now – kinda, sorta, maybe, maybe not – discovered a genetic basis for gayness. But, again, in yet another implementation of Sharia Law, the ‘scientific’ establishment is discouraged to perform or publicize the research that would show that gay sexual molestation of children and teens is a vastly more accurate predictor of gayness than any genetic profile – which is WHY Islamic societies have a much greater incidence of gayness than Western cultures….

          “When people say there’s a gay gene, it’s an oversimplification,” Sanders said. “There’s more than one gene, and genetics is not the whole story. Whatever gene contributes to sexual orientation, you can think of it as much as contributing to heterosexuality as much as you can think of it contributing to homosexuality. It contributes to a variation in the trait.”

        • Read this article – especially the comments from gays – and then tell me that Western Christian civilization can live in one big happy counter jihad tent with gays who actively deny Western Christians the right to practice free speech, make political donations, and support their families via employment, etc.

          Most ironic is this comment from “Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, who was the first openly gay bishop elected in the Anglican Communion”:

          “”It seems to me when a society makes a determination that something is wrong, for example racial hatred, then somehow it’s not intolerant to insist upon that understanding,” Robinson said.”

          NOTE: 52% of California voters voted to define marriage between one man and one woman. It was ONE gay judge who overturned the will of the people and the rule of law – along with thousands of years of precedent and religious and natural law. Now, the gay lobby is determined that ALL people WILL conform to the goals of the gay lobby (even as represented by the gay lobby inside of mainline Christian churches) – or be harshly persecuted in press and in person and in (lack of) employment.

  13. It is quite possible that those comments could easily have been mine when I was a child of nineteen or twenty. Nowadays, experience has opened my mind a little so that I am not blinkered as to head forever in one direction. The Left need a home for anti Jihadism, not here perhaps, yet I can feel his pain. Add a few years, some experience and he’ll come around.

    • For him its like this:

      Conservatives: telling truth about islam, lying about everything else.
      Liberals/progressives: lying about islam, telling the truth about everything else.

      Strange isnt it? A counter-jihad liberal (progressive/leftist) should be asking: Why are the people on his side of the political debate enabling his enemies while the opponents to jihad are almost exclusively conservatives? Why is is every oponent of islam labeled as racist, intollerant extremist right-winger by the liberal media in the US and EU?

  14. As much as one can be tempted to create a “great CJ tent,” it’s a futile mission. Jihad is not the disease, but a symptom of the disease. And it’s not a disease of the jihadists, just as it is a healthy virus that causes disease in a vulnerable organism. It’s a disease of Western society, and postmodern leftism is a major part of the disease, though not its entirety as the main players in our capitalism are quite a sick bunch too. What good will it do to unite with the main agent of our systemic degeneration in order to fight one of the symptoms of the degeneration?

    • I am not one of those who is tempted to create a “great CJ tent”. I like lots of small tents where one can visit- make the rounds – but few where I could hang out exclusively and we’d all begin to focus on one another’s warts. (That’s why it takes poor eyesight and a lot of compassion to establish a stable marriage.)

      Now a left-wing socialist CJ church tent would probably be an oxymoron, even though they share many of the same dogmas and would make convivial fellow-travelers for a short distance. However, they’re mostly more assured of what they hate than what they espouse…(as the old saying goes, show me what makes you angry and I’ll know who you are)…

      When the wars are reduced to the happy rainbow ponies vs the bloody jihadists, it’ll be a rout and our unfortunate would-be commenter will be at the bottom of the pile.

    • I certainly don’t want to belong to a Tent that believes that Islam is not the primary problem and that the West is worse than Islam. I would be appalled to see this yet again in the Counter-Jihad, were I not wearied.

  15. I’m not sure why you felt the need to post that puerile screed in its entirety.

    The author seems to have not noticed that the left has defined the counterjihad to be not merely “right wing”, but “far right”, so that Geert Wilders, whose positions on social issues seem to comport with the author’s in many respects is considered part of the “far right”.

    • DNY- There was no ‘felt need’ on the part of either of us to publish that person’s rant. We get them all the time, and thought it would be of interest and utility for our usual commenters to see the kinds of things we do not normally let through.In fact, for what we put in the trash, he was more or less middle of the road.

      It wasn’t just his ranting tone and lack of rational argument, but the crude and uncivil means by which he chose to make his feelings known. His comment is/was the antithesis of what we strive to attain here. I would presume that in his normal habitat people communicate in those terms much of the time.

      He and his ilk are part of just one problem facing the West, that is the deeply degrading exchange of vitriol sans wit or subtlety which has made public comment threads tediously vaporous and heated. Rage, rage, rage, reason be damned.

      His rhetoric reminded me of the schoolyard taunts one would hear yelled out at some poor kid – “we would maybe like you if you weren’t such a loser. Get a new personality, moron!”

      Such people live in a bubble. They haven’t any clue re Geert Wilders’ principles – or even the rules of parliamentary politics in Europe. Notice that he focused on those the American Left has demonized- the Koch Brothers and Michelle Bachmann. And he doesn’t know much about those three except the things he’s told in his normal rounds.

      We actually have some left-leaning commenters here. They have to be careful to whom they tell their dirty secret of participating at Gates of Vienna…and so this was partly for them, too.

      • “DNY- There was no ‘felt need’ on the part of either of us to publish that person’s rant. We get them all the time, and thought it would be of interest and utility for our usual commenters to see the kinds of things we do not normally let through.In fact, for what we put in the trash, he was more or less middle of the road.”

        I think it is an important subject. But I also think that there is basically zero effort in starting a blog. So rather than bitch about GoV etc. Leftists should start their own blogs on the subject. I keep meaning to start my own site, which would probably be espousing the positions that most Leftists would find acceptable (if they could drop their blinkers – and stop seeing Geert Wilders as “far right”, for example). But since I no longer think there is any possibility of stopping the civil war in Europe, I can’t be bothered to try and persuade anyone to try and stop it.

      • Much appreciated. I’ve had to give up on trying to alert my siblings to the dangers; one threatened to block my emails, and another- who first sent me in this direction, with a link to Pat Condell- has to be approached with caution on the subject.

  16. The world would have been a better place if his head had exploded. Typical leftist rant, emotion over-riding logic and rational thought. Unreadable, I stopped halfway through. If this fellow wants anyone to listen to him he needs to learn how to stop SHOUTING, how to think logically, and how to treat others with respect.

    Until that day comes, I wouldn’t waste my time attempting to converse with him or anyone like him.

    And that, I am afraid, is the voice of bitter experience.

  17. I took this as good news: viz. that there are people on the left who are learning about Islam.

    I love this blog . It is literate, invariably kind and tolerant, and hugely informative. We can see from this that GOV is changing readers’ minds.

    All good.

  18. Given the infestation of islam in the UK is almost entirely down to “progressive” and liberal socialists I sat he is a trojan horse. He needs to understand a lot of christians understand that according to the book they believe in abortion and [sexual perversion] lead to the persons soul going to hell and the book tells them to work to save souls, it is not that hard to understand and if you don’t buy in to it be polite and agree to differ!

  19. That comment reminds me of why it is that I consider myself a Conservative who values life and individual expression and thought, but most of all, the political freedom to be able to run my life as I see fit and not as over bloated, utopian idealistic government would have me run it.

    As for Islam – it is the natural enemy of all who do not share its totalitarian ideology which even some Collectivists, like that commenter, are slowly waking up to.

    I would also add, if that commenter wishes to be included as a participant in what we are generally engaged in on this site, then he/she must learn to become far more open minded and tolerant of others and the views they may hold.

    But; and here is the most significant difference between the thoughts expressed by that commenter as compared to the thoughts expressed by most on this site:

    I may not agree with what that commenter has put into words, but I would defend his/her right to be able to utter or write them even though his/her position appears to be the complete opposite to what he/she is prepared to tolerate from us.

    And we may consider ourselves to be tolerant, but that does not mean we have to put up with intolerance toward what we hold dear.

    And until that commenter can come to terms with those two paragraphs and their meaning he/she will always find him/herself on the outer when it comes to the Jihad.

  20. Maybe he discovered that the only thing he disagrees with Jihad on is their stance on homosexuality.

    • See this chart, and you will understand how the Leftists have been unable to avoid things like FGM.

      For 25 years, they could ignore what was going on with the islamisation of the west. But even Der Guardian in the UK has had to tag along as the other “quality” media started to pay huge attention to issues which the Left wanted to have censored.

  21. In response to your query, Baron:




    It pays to focus on the objective. I don’t have words enough to describe the value of GoV, to me, and undoubtedly to countless other. However, sometimes articles appear here on this site that are extreme and have little or nothing to do with the Counterjihad except in some theoretical place where most people do not dwell and rarely visit. Such articles practically serve to alienate potential allies, for questionable purpose. We are at war here, and war is not about who is right, but who is left. Let us not forget that the battle against islamism cannot be won unless a major portion of the political left is won over, and that is indeed the most important consideration for the Counterjihad in the short and middle term. Finally, as is so often the case, it is a mistake to focus on the messenger here. What matters are the points put forward so succinctly and relevantly by the Baron.

    • I think that the problem is that Islam really isnt an existential threat to Europe, but for the aiding and abetting by Marxists/Socialists/Leftists.

      So to get at the root cause of the problem. The War we are really engaged in is between European Christendom (the old order) and the Marxists/Socialist/Atheists (the aspirant order).

      Islam is a side show….another minority group to agitate and militate against the old European Christian order….except they have the demographics (with continued immigration pushed by the Left) to steal the Left’s triumph over European Christendom for themselves.

      • That is academic. Britain in WW2 didn’t focus her energy on trying to analyze and correct the autocratic sympathies and conformist tendencies of the German people. Rightly so or the war would have been lost. If we keep indulging our satisfaction to be right, we are not the ones who are going to be left.

    • You are wrong. I commend to your attention the visionary 1973 classic “The Camp of the Saints” in which Europe is destroyed through mass migration of desperate Hindus, which the European post-Christian-but-still-bleeding heart cannot bring itself to turn back.

  22. I’m in favor of winning over anyone to the truth about Islam. I can’t help but be dismayed at why they aren’t won over by the least, teeny tiniest exposure to the actual deeds of Muslims. E.g., Beslan, 9/11, the Saudi religious police, FGM, honor killings, child marriage, subjugation of women. 80,000,000 were slaughtered in the Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent.

    A friend gave me The Gulag Archipelago. That one book changed my worldview forever. I never could go back to being blind to the realities of totalitarian communism. One book!

    Now, is it not as clear as day that NO amount of data presented to liberals is sufficient to wake them up. If there were these “honestly curious left wingers” out there they’d have found that life-changing book or event long ago and have thrown themselves into some version of the CJ years ago. But where are they?

    • “But where are they?”

      They are literally SCREAMING at us to SHUT UP because we are killing their buzz….

      “I just want to be happy” is their mantra.

      Baron, your pic was cute, but the man should look like a hippie with long hair in a pony tail, a tie-dyed shirt, a smoking joint, and a dead-eyed stoned stare….

      • Most of them yes. But when 9/11 happened and my father said “Islam is the cause of this madness!” as a very naive uni idiot I thought he wasn’t seeing the whole issue. That some how Christians were just as bad and that maybe the west should get out of their holy lands. I find that view insane now. At the time there wasn’t much CJ content that I had seen. It took years to shake the idea that all religion is equally bad. I still don’t like religion, like Hitchens was, I consider myself an anti-theist. At some point though it became clear that Islam is in a completely different league in terms of what it does to people’s brains and whole societies. I still hold some left wing opinions but I have swung dramatically right compared to when 9/11 happened. Leftist people can come around to support the CJ. It wasn’t the talk on guns and abortions and Obama is the antichrist though that swung me. It was the logical extention that totalitarianism is wrong and Islam is its ultimate form. I feel this came from an honest appraisal of the leftist thought I had embraced and not from a right wing influence. Keep in mind also that im not American and am not subject to the extreme left vs right rage you guys are subjected to. Here in Aus there is a left and right but both are relatively tame with small fringes of ‘extreme’ groups on both sides. I guess my point is, there are common beliefs, believe it or not, between left and right which can lead to support of the CJ.

        • Marxism has been described as a Christian heresy by better minds than mind. There is much truth in that. So you can think of the European Western Left as an extremist Christian sect…who seek to create Heaven on Earth. This Utopianism leads to all kinds of human misery. The totalitarian ferver of the Western Left is well documented.

          But I like Australia’s new government! Just wanted to say. Hoo Rah!

      • They want to be happy

        Hence the sexual liberation, drugs, rights to dictate what they want others to do, hatred of religion, ( so passé)…

        Invariably they are wrapped in their own little worlds, listening to music on a bus, playing around with their phones… Not paying any attention, the only news is through Facebook, Twitter or 2 mins on the Internet.

        Social animals, who want to to be part of the trendy herd.

        Believe you me, I was there, part of solidarity for Palestine, fundraising to make a better world, socialist, because I thought that we could bring everyone together.

        A little older, wiser now.

      • No, the Baron’s picture is spot on. It’s a typical “hipster”, and the screed was typical of the attitudes of twenty-something “hipsters”. An actual hippie would produce too much ambiguity — might be a proper libertarian, might be too stoned to evince the puerile rage found in the post. The hipster was perfect.

  23. As you turn purple and stroke out from apoplexy in the background they will say with an absolutely straight face how they’ve ‘always’ been against intolerant islam and how it’s now ‘acceptable’ to hate muslims as much as we (liberals) hate Christians. – Fascist Leftwing Hater of Judeo-Christendom

    I found this bit of honesty, welcome.

    Haters gonna hate.

  24. The guy has a point of sorts. Anybody who wants to achieve something in the political realm has to find such allies as they can, where they find them. This means respecting the fact that many people who will differ with you on some point have their reasons for differing. It means recognizing that you, yourself, are a mortal human and just might be wrong about something you’re sure you’re right about.

    I’m a conservative who’s not very religious and not at all inclined to believe that scientists are all lying when they say that we evolved from apes or that extra CO2 will drive up average temperatures around the globe and cause trouble.

    I don’t mind being on the other team when it comes to some particular issue. If the other team is right and my team is wrong on that issue, well?

    When it comes time to call in a favor and ask that somebody on the other team vote with my team on an issue they agree with us on and don’t agree with their own team on, maybe they will. Reciprocity.

    The nation cannot be well governed if nobody will entertain the thought of cutting deals with the other side for the greater good of the whole. A strategy of painting everybody in the other corner as badbadbad and never yielding an inch on any point is virtually never going to get good results in the long run. Most of us have learned this in the realms of work and domestic life, but it needs to scale up too.

    • Maybe a memo to Obama? President “I Won” has made it plain for years that Washington under his rule is exactly that: HIS rule.No need for the judiciary or the legislative branch when one can just issue directives.

      One small point in that general miasma: the courts freed up the EPA to issue permits for oil several years ago but the EPA doesn’t want to. So oil companies have no access to what is legally theirs to pursue. And states like Louisiana suffer for it, Americans pay more for an artificially scarce commodity. Because this president has said repeatedly he wants to stifle fossil fuels.

      When the EU asked him to release oil and gas so they could get freed up from Russia’s monopoly, he refused.

      • Somewhat off topic – but I can’t help feeling there is a quid pro quo coming back in the form of Putin/Russia suddenly finding less urgency in their need to defend Assad in the near future. Syria may well fall to the Jihadis because the West has turned a blind eye to Russia & the Crimea. Just a thought…

        As to our volatile young friend… it was a joy to attend the SION conference in Melbourne a few weeks ago. There we all were: atheists, homosexuals, orthodox through to secular jews and christians of various stripes. All united in one thing – defeating the totalitarianism of Islam. All aware that we would be swinging from neighbouring lamp posts should our cause fail. All recognising that we may not be natural allies but all prepared to put otherwise major differences aside in order that we may first ensure that we can have a future where we can voice & discuss those differences.

        It was wonderful. Yes there are major points of departure, but we are capable of disagreeing, discussing, learning and maybe even changing our minds. IMHO our house is burning down, we need to get together to put the thing out. Politely discussing Weltenschaung between ourselves if time allows is also a good thing…

        But then, as a tongues speaking red-neck evangelical bible believing christo-crazy I would say that wouldn’t I?

      • Of course he refused. Because that would also release Europe from the thumb of OPEC/OIC.

    • No Leftwing Parties are offering to work with Counter-Jihadis on legislation to restrict Mulsim immigration. Legislation to protect Free Speech and repeal Hate Speech legislation. They just demonize them as racist xenophobes who hate brown people instead (just like the OP).

  25. Please don’t think I have anything against this site or how it is run. I appreciate it and have been visiting for years. Thanks for letting me speak my mind. I dont doubt we have common goals. Civilization needs you. Keep up the fantastic work.

  26. As left-socialists, liberal or progressives – whatever term you apply to this aggressive mob – feel no qualms about offending or shocking anyone, I don’t think that your web site should take any measures “not to offend left-socialists who disagree with us on most topics but oppose shariah”. I may voice a very unpopular opinion, but I consider this “left-socialist” or “liberal” or “progressive” ideology to be as much of a threat to welfare and the very existence of the human race (and especially, of the Western civilisation), as shariah.

  27. Well, on the one hand – good to see liberals waking up! But on the other hand, if he takes the approach of “looking up Michele Bachmann’s position and voting the exact opposite”… how mature is that, exactly? When in the next sentence, he realises that everything she had to say about Islam was “100% true”… perhaps someone engaging their brain first, rather than their hatred of Christianity, may ponder that OTHER things Bachmann says may also be “100% true”?

    Yes, we should be “counterjihad first” – but there are other issues out there as well, some interconnected. For example, the much-heralded leftist-Islamist alliance. Why is GLBT-friendly San Francisco so averse to any criticism of GLBT-hating Islam? Why do socialists and the British far-leftist party “Respect” ally themselves with Islamists, when Islamists in Muslim countries persecute far-leftists? Should such questions be out of reach for counterjihadis?

    On many such “side issues”, I’m in agreement with most counterjihadis. Yet on some, like the Ukraine or energy/environmental issues, we’re probably on the opposite sides of the spectrum. So, each time I see something praising Putin about the Ukraine, should I run away with disgust and click on, or simply disagree and move onto the next article? As someone who professes to see the problems caused by Islam, perhaps the poster here should put his priorities in order… what’s more important? Disagreeing with everything Michelle Bachmann says? Or disagreeing with Islam? The choice is only his to make – not ours…

  28. What would be the point of winning the counter-jihad if a world run by people like this is the prize? I don’t want to live in a left-fascist world any more than I do in an Islamofascist world. Any cooperation would be as the West allied with the Soviet Union: just long enough to destroy our common enemy. And unfortunately, we would be left with bloodstained hands for enabling your crimes.

    It’s all very unappealing.

  29. “How many times have I read about the evils of islam from Raymond Ibrahim only to click the next article about the evils of abortion? Does he ever consider that some of us are ABSOLUTELY PRO CHOICE? It never even registers to Ibrahim that taking away a woman’s CHOICE makes her EXACTLY like a muslim woman.”

    This guy demonstrates that the Left only see the world in terms of slogans (Orwell nailed that).

    For this moral pygmy, abortion can only be understood in terms of “a woman’s right to choose”. Every single one of my friends and family hit almost all the right notes to be branded as “progressive” or “liberal”. Yet the vast majority of them are vehemently anti-abortion. None of them would every support “honor” killing, FGM, homopohobia, burkas, terrorism, halal slaughter — but because they differ with the moral pygmy on the complexities of the issues around abortion, he would want nothing to do with them.

  30. Do you know, I am fed up with being told that I must compromise on my beliefs because other people won’t compromise on theirs, and the implication is that they are right and I am wrong.

    I find socialism in all its forms obnoxious; it is a religion which wishes to surplant Judeo-Christianity with a form of lawlessness where law is based upon transient ‘fashion’ statements which change from day to day and victim group to victim group.

    Twenty years ago it was “up the workers” now it is “up the shirkers” because the workers would not play ball.

    When a real grassroots worker’s organisation like the EDL or middle class Tea Parties come along, the champagne socialists get frightened and start mouthing off their stock epithets all sung from the socialist hymnsheet:

    “To Dickson’s surprise Dougal seemed to be in good spirits. He began to sing to a hymn tune a strange ditty.

    “Class-conscious we are, and class-conscious wull be
    Till our fit’s on the neck o’ the Boorjoyzee.”

    “What on earth are you singing?” Dickson inquired.

    Dougal grinned. “Wee Jaikie went to a Socialist Sunday School last winter because he heard they were for fechtin’ battles. Ay, and they telled him he was to join a thing called an International, and Jaikie thought it was a fitba’ club. But when he fund out there was no magic lantern or swaree at Christmas he gie’d it the chuck. They learned him a heap o’ queer songs. That’s one.”

    “What does the last word mean?”

    “I don’t ken. Jaikie thought it was some kind of a draigon.””
    (From Huntingtower by John Buchan 1922)

    “empty vessels make most noise!”

  31. The most post powerful argument against Classical, Orthodox, Historic Islam is the ontological one – that about Being and Personhood. In short, to post its common phrasing, the sanctity of dignity of human life, from conception to natural death.

    That identifies the fellow’s much repulsive “conservative” has being (potentially) the best armored counter-jihad warrior. “Traditional” Christians have been on this battlefield for centuries. We must not pail their buckets of spelt blood out of sight for the sake of Leftist sensitivities, even if they are counter-jihad ones. We must admit this bloody fact of this long war, even as we acknowledge our latent wish for such Christians to shed more blood than their own.

    The above point made even before one maps out the progress of “creeping sharia” and uploading beheading videos.

    Yet, when getting down to specifics it may be useful (as a thought experiment) to pick one of the writer’s thorny subjects. Let’s say homosexuality.

    Have noticed of late that various counter-jihad sites have been highlighting the on-going “persecution” of “gay: Muslims in Islamic societies. No need to illustrate; you’ve seen them. The point, I think, has a recruitment aim: to compel, through these horrendous stories, a change of attitude on the part of Leftists: since it is infallible dogma that homosexual behavior must be supported and evangelized to the ends of the earth, then certainly the left can now join us in our campaign against Islam.

    I have yet to see any change of minds, let alone hearty conversions.

    That is because the fate of INDIVIDUAL “gay” men and women is the last concern of the Left. What matters most, as in Islam, is the Leftist collective with its want for totalitarian power. Here we are, back to the primary issue of Being and Personhood – which neither Islam nor the Left give a damn about.

    But there is more, and it has to do with appearances – those that frustrate the fellow who wrote this piece. To him it seems (I gather from his phrasing) that traditional (conservative) Christians are hypocrites when it comes to a subject such as homosexuality, because they despise and persecute homosexuals as much as Islam does. On this issue they are on the same page, so why do they go counter-jihading against Islam?

    The answer is a millimeter from the tip of his nose! Regarding homosexuality Islam is the hypocrite here. And mightily so. Have you ever been to the train station in Karachi?

    No time to exegete this point out – think the word these days is “unpack”. The cat needs to be fed. My ride has come. Have to go.

    • To an Arab (as to a Nazi) the ‘homosexual’ is only the receiving (subserviant) partner. So it is permissible to give but not to receive.

      This equates very well with the idea of women being guilty of ‘provoking’ rape. This is why, as well as 72 Houris (perpetual virgins) warriors also have a choice of delectable youn serving boys.

      The wife (should she make it to ‘heaven’ which is, apparantly, rare) thus has to compete for her husband against this fierce opposition….

      BTW it is not lawful for Christians to Kill Homosexuals, and Jews cannot kill them unless a levitical priest is present (these all perished with the destruction of the Temple (and its records)).

      These are the major differences between the Islamic and Christian views.

  32. Beyond the Quilliam Foundation, there are web sites that tackle counter-jihad with a touch that may not be highlighted by the venerable Gates of Vienna.

    The Council of Muslims Facing Tomorrow in Canada seems to be highly critical of the old world fascism that jihadism embodies. The American Islamic Forum for Democracy ( has a president that speaks often about the dark night of islamist ideology. Folks like Zuhdi Jasser, Tarek Fatah, Irshad Manji have web sites and FaceBook pages — not at all drinking the “Kool-Aid” of Judeo-Christian mind sets without some critical thinking. Folks who have left their “indigenous” cultures behind, Nonie Darwish or Ayan Hirsi Ali, are pretty good about addressing the culture from which they departed.

    • People who self-identify as Muslims inevitably still support the evils of Islam – by bearing Muslim children who often ‘return’ to their Muslim roots – by presenting a ‘moderate’ Muslim face to obscure the true evils of Islamic societies led by Muslim leadership according to Muslim tenets, and by lending their finances to fund violent jihad (e.g., Muslims who eat halal food are actively funding violent jihad. Muslims who send money back to the ‘old’ country are supporting Muslim regimes.)

      Of course, ‘moderate’ Muslims are really Muslim apostates who would face summary execution in Islamic societies.

      People who identify as FORMER Muslims (while citing reasons like ‘I am against wife beating. I am against FGM.) are much more useful to counter the propaganda of mythical ‘moderate’ Muslims.

      • “People who self-identify as Muslims inevitably still support the evils of Islam”

        On many occasions those at Quilliam who have supposedly “seen the light”, have been asked to explain in what way is there any difference between an islamist terrorist and Mohammed, the founder of islam. Not once have they even attempted to answer this question.

        This is the key question. Until this is answered, there is no such thing as islamism.

    • Islam is islam and where ever islam goes the blood always flows without exception. The left and islam one way or another are going to have to be [intemperate suggestions redacted].

  33. BB/Dmphyna: thanks for the website. You are getting it right here.

    The OP should exercise his/her right to ‘succeed’ from this website and form their own website. Where they dhimmly battle both the Jihad and the awful Christians and Jews, whose values would force them to have tv shows ‘only fit to be watched by a 6 year old’ (says it all in a nutshell).

  34. PART TWO: Islam & Homosexuality: Why Orthodox Judaism & Christianity hold nothing in common with Orthodox Islam

    Islam’s hypocrisy regarding homosexuality (and all things sexual) is a fallout from it’s theology of Allah, that god’s nature and character.

    That observation (fourteen hundred years old and running) counters any suggestion that traditional, orthodox Judaism & Christianity shares a purchase with Islam just because all three – on the surface – hold a negative position when it comes to homosexuality – or any sexuality that deviates or inverts the mandate given to creation of sex and the complementary bonding of the Man and the Woman.

    Islam holds that “negative” view for totally other reasons. Those reasons are based upon an understanding of God which both Judaism and Christianity would abhor and refuse to inform their doctrines of ethics.

    This is not, again, the place to expound that. Refer you to the Patrick Poole’s excellent brief which can be accessed here: “Islam and the Problem of Rationality” (American Thinker)

    In summary: Islam attaches to Allah three pet dogmas which hinder peace and a consistent ethics based on some acceptance of the Rules of Logic (Logos). These attributes of Allah are the stamping, hoofing steads of death and destruction on the battlefield for the hearts and cities of mankind, let alone the lives and bodies of man, women, and unborn babes everywhere.

    Those three prowling, snorting beasts of Allah’s nature are: “Volunteerism”, “Occasionalism”, and “Dual-Truth Theory”.

    * * *


    You do a great service highlighting the Left’s refusal to acknowledge [Islam’s brutal hounding of homosexuals]. Keep it up. Poking them in this blind spot may, over time, make them see the truth.

    Yes, homosexuality is a sin in orthodox Christianity and Judaism, but its “wrongness” is seen so utterly different in Islam – beyond the notion of grace and mercy which is integral to the other faiths. As you suggested [in your remarks], it all goes back to the foundational concepts of Being and Personhood which Islam has no use and patience for. In Islam, Being and Personhood informs nothing.

    But (sorry) doesn’t Islam harbor a hypocrisy regarding homosexuality? Any [superficial] acquaintance with Islamic societies (Arab or not) shows that homosexuality (has been) is widely practiced – and is no Western/infidel import!
    There is a report that sexual assault on boys in the West Bank/Gaza nears 50%: higher than even with girls.

    And, [to waylay the question], this is not confusing homosexuality and pedophilia. Islam is no respector of age-of-consent norms. It may even be that the common practice of pedophilic homosexuality contributes to the grooming of jihadis and their violence. I would even look for the presence of [homo]sexual abuse in the biographies of western converts to Islam.

    [Even here Islam’s hypocrisy regarding homosexuality reveals itself. Though Islam will countenance, within, a pedophilia culture, for the disassociated abused convert jihadi Islam provides the perfect revenge. Only goes to show, that the more fatherless the West becomes the more Islamic it will be.

    Yet, still, I would take this further. Islam’s hypocritical attitude towards homosexuality mirrors (devolves) from its theology, from its construction of Allah’s nature and character. Allah who has no use for logos and logic has no problem with hypocrisy in its morals. Islamic ethics is not about the eternal surety of the Natural Law.

    Let the whips and brick walls fall upon gays, there are always some boys around the bend.

    * * *

    Islam is theologically aghast against homosexuality. It barks a serious hang-‘em-high “no”, yet remains compelled to be homosexualist in its underpinnings.

    None of this can be explained (excused) by yanking pointless points: 1) It’s the culture not Islam; 2) Let’s look at “context”: history, whatever.

    Regarding the first, this is been the “cultural” expression of Islam for 1400 years. Regarding the second, classical, orthodox, historic Islam does not permit the notion of “context”.

    The notion of “context” is a Western one, which, to some degree, implies the acknowledgement of the rules of logic which are anathema to Islam. Muslim apologist use the concept of “context” as a bludgeon to quell the Christian, the Jew, the secular Westerner. They give no allowance for the term. It can’t, when the only “context” is Allah’s Totalitarian Oneness: Allah, whose nature is characterized by “Volunteerism”, “Occasionalism”, and “Dual-Truth Theory”.

    AND THIS: Have noted that while the subject of Islam’s (Allah inspired) “dual-theory” take on homosexuality was discussed with some regularity in the past it has dropped from the conversation.

    Refer you to the Patrick Poole’s excellent brief “Islam and the Problem of Rationality” (American Thinker)

    “Islam’s Love-Hate Relationship with Homosexuality”, Serge Trifkovic (FrontPage)
    James M. Arlandson: Homosexuality In Early Islam” (Jihad Watch)
    The Lost Verses of the Quran”, Theodore Shoebat (FrontPage).Why, in old books on Islam, are there references to verses in the Quran which cannot be found in today’s copies? Link
    The Islamic Roots of Abdulmutallab’s Suicidal Odyssey, Jamie Glazov (Pajamas Media) Link
    “Unable to Bear the Company of Women”, Jamie Glazov (FrontPage/NewsReel). Link
    “Sexual Starvation and Jihad Fantasies”, Miranda Devine (FrontPage) Link
    “The Psychoanalytic Roots of Islamic Terrorism”, Phyllis Chesler Link
    “How the Islamist Mindset Rationalizes and Promotes ‘Sex Sins’“,
    Raymond Ibrahim (Pajamas Media)
    “The Sexual Rage Behind Islamic Terror”,
    Jamie Glazov (FrontPage) Link
    “Islam’s Appeal, or, Boys will be Boys”,
    Raymond Ibrahim (Private Papers) Link
    Articles: Islam: A Religion Custom-Made For Men, Amil Imani (American Thinker)
    Behead First, Ask Questions Later”, Robert Spencer (P Media) The behavior of boys terrified because they know they are not men.
    “Why the Rich Muslim Boy Became a Terrorist”, Jamie Glazov (FrontPage) Link
    You are being redirected…
    Raymond Ibrahim (Jihad Watch Link
    Islam Watch — “Virgins in Paradise: What virgins?” by Ibn Warraq
    Ibn Warraq (via Islam Watch). Maybe those guys wasted their time slamming New York towers. Let alone their lives.
    “The Path to Paradise (interview with Anat Berko)”, Jamie Glazov (FrontPage)
    “Why the Rich Muslim Boy Became a Terrorist”, Jamie Glazov (FrontPage) Link
    Renowned psychologist says, “Muslims become suicide bombers because they don’t get laid enough”. (Bare Naked Islam) Link
    PJ Media — The Lure of Radical Islam, or ‘Boys Will Be Boys’ — Print
    Raymond Ibrahim (Pajamas Media) Link
    How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam ”, Fjordman (The Brussels Journal) Link
    Articles: Burkas and Babies”, Glenn Fairman (American Thinker). Sex appears so persistent in the Islamic consciousness that it has been subject to a byzantine set of laws that seek to enflame rather than tame carnal lust.

    Sodomy ‘For the Sake of Islam’”,Raymond Ibrahim (FrontPage)
    Islamic Sodomy or ‘Islamophobic Hoax’?”, Raymond Ibrahim (FrontPage)
    Sodomy For Islam — on The Jamie Glazov Show” (FrontPage)
    “Islam’s Insanities: All Just a ‘Hoax’?”, Raymond Ibrahim (FrontPage)
    NICOLAI SENNELS: Pioneer work. Worth slogging through. Spellbinding.
    “A Muslim Upbringing and Terrorism” (FrontPage)
    “Western Quran Schools are Terrorists Factories” (Europe News)
    CASE STUDY: Ambassador Stevens Gay Raped in Libya for Islam
    “The Rape of Christopher Stevens”, Raymond Ibrahim (FrontPage)
    “To Kill an American Ambassador — on The Glazov Gang”, Jamie Glazov (FrontPage)
    Christopher Stevens: Devoured by a Monster He Helped Create”, Robert Spencer (FrontPage)

    Saudi prince las vegas
    The alcohol-fuelled lifestyle of the Saudi prince confirms popular …
    Saudi sergeant arrested, admits raping 13-year old boy in Las …
    “Boys of the Taliban”, Jamie Glazov (FrontPage) Link
    “Why is America Fighting and Dying for Proud Pedophiles?”,
    Joel Brinkley (via Diana West). And this UPDATE. Do click on the Gates of Vienna link. Do. Disgusting. Link
    STILL AT IT: The underage Bacha Bazi ‘dancing boys’ of Afghanistan (Bare Naked Islam).
    “Afghanistan-bacha-bazi-boys-where-very-young-boys-boys-are-entertainment-for-adult-men (Bare Naked Islam).
    “Islamic Homosexual Pederasty and Afghanistan’s ‘Dancing Boys’“,
    Phyllis Chesler (Pajamas Media).
    On the religious foundation of gay Afghanistan and their boys, do, do read this from Spengler, Asia Times Online:: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan, Spengler/David Goldman (Asia Times Online).
    “A Jihad for Love”, Deborah Weiss (FrontPage) Link
    “Islamic Bigotry: the Slaughter of 4,000 Gays”, Robert Spencer (FrontPage) Link
    Opinion, Editorials, Columns, Op-Ed, Letters to the Editor, Commentary — Wall Street Journal —
    Bret Stephens (Opinion Journal) Link
    You are being redirected… (Jihad Watch) Link
    “Gay Sex, Hamas-Fatah and Videotape”,
    Khaled Abu Toameh (FrontPage) Link
    Despite the 2002 ‘ban’ on child camel jockeys, the UAE is still using them (Bare Naked Islam) Link
    Gates of Vienna: Islam’s Nancy Boys: The Psychological Background, N, Sennels (Gates of Vienna) Link
    Taliban Celebrate Ramadan by Beating Men Wearing “See-Through” Clothes ”, Daniel Greenfield (FrontPage). Link
    PAKISTAN: Street children sex workers often abused by police, too (Bare Naked Islam)
    Pakistan’s Biggest Gay Cruising Spot is an Islamic Shrine” (FrontPage) Link
    You are being redirected… (Jihad Watch)
    BOOK: The Pink Swastika
    by Lively & Abrams. Read chapter “Homosexuality and Islamist Terrorism”. I make no apology for listing this book!
    “muslims believe in peace but killing fags like you il be doing a favor to god and il enjoy your throates being cut of and your blood oozing out before me” (FrontPage) Link
    Shiite Cleric Explains Why Sunni Leaders Are Homosexuals (FrontPage) Link
    Articles: Gays for Sharia?”, Pamela Geller (American Thinker) Link
    Hollywood Protests Russian Anti-Gay Laws but Is Silent About Persecution in Muslim Countries, Rick Moran (PJ Media). Link
    Devout Muslims kidnap 12 Gay men, threaten mutilation and death — Atlas Shrugs (Atlas Shrugs) Link
    You are being redirected… (Jihad Watch).
    “President of the Islamic Forum of Canada Explains How Gays Benefit from Being Stoned to Death” (FrontPage). Link
    You are being redirected… (Jihad Watch) Link
    Kuwait mulls screening workers for homosexuality — it’s a “Sharia duty” (Jihad Watch)

    He’s the man to watch! All of Islam does. He’s Allah’s man to imitate. All of Islam does.
    “Muhammad, the Sexual Superman”, Raymond Ibrahim (FrontPage). READ THIS FIRST! God, who was this man? Link
    You are being redirected…
    Raymond Ibrahim (Jihad Watch) Link
    Islamic ‘Death-Sex’ in Context , Raymond Ibrahim (FrontPage). The Prophet sexually penetrated, had intercourse (and such) with a dead woman. Link
    TheReligionofPeace — Islam: Muhammad’s Sex Life (Religion of Peace) Link
    Islam Watch — “Muhammad in Islam’s own writings: His sex-life, sexual abuse and pedophilia” by Reason (Islam Watch) Link
    “Stories not Told Before”, Mohammad Asghar (Free Thinkers) Link
    “The Sex Life of the Prophet” (Religion of Peace) Link
    You are being redirected…, Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch) Link
    You are being redirected…
    Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch). Link
    Zakaria Botros: Islam’s Scourge Returns (FrontPage)

    • Steve Golay: This is an example of WTMI – Way Too Much Information. As much as I’ve read about Islam’s various perversions, even I find this collection an overwhelming kludge. You could take any single author you mention and do an outstanding essay on their work. Patrick Poole, the first one I noticed, has that essay from 2006 in answer to Taqiyyah Ramadan, is certainly worth discussing in detail. And eight years later, still relevant.

      But therein lies the problem: there is so much here one couldn’t get through everything in a semester of reading – nor get through at all without feedback and interaction with others over months of discussion and thought.

      You find Nicolai Sennels’ work “worth slogging through”. The first essay of his I read – at the New English Review some years ago – was revelatory, not a slog at all. It was inspiring to know that someone was using theories of family attachment to address the problems of Islam rubbing up against Western culture. His work is of essential value in explaining the family system underlying the pathology of tribal Islam attempting to exist in a Western environment. His work stands almost alone in the path he takes through tribal families and the dysfunction of Islamic beliefs when it comes to raising tough but compassionate children. It’s a shame his book has never been translated into English or that his essays are not properly edited since his information is extraordinarily valuable.

      Phyllis Chesler’s link to “No Spank” would hit a raw nerve with many parents who are firmly committed to the ways in which they were raised. Thus this issue is particularly radioactive since it requires adults to relinquish their own parents’ teaching about how to discipline children…

      In other words, your listing, which I presume you assembled over time, is a motherlode of information of some of the more toxic dynamics of personal, family, and cultural aspects of Islamic theocracy as it is attempted to be lived by Muslim families dumped in the middle of a Western culture.

      Your assembly is a most valuable bibliography but largely wasted here in our evanescent comment section. Do you have a more permanent residence for this material? I surely hope so.

      If you do have this catalogued somewhere, please let us know so we can let our readers know how to find it.

      • [redacted]

        In Islam, Muslims have NO homosexual pedophilia because boys are viewed as girls until the boys grow a beard – which is why we see those scraggly beards on Muslim boys and men – with longer beards being seen as better.

        I found your list great – although I just skimmed the titles – a repository to link to for source material would be good. 🙂

      • Mr.Golay:

        Now that the Baron has made your links more “visible” by cleaning up the format making them clickable, I see your long emphasis on Islam’s repugnant aberration re all forms of sexuality. Given our own culture’s sleaze level now, it’s not something I’d be willing to emphasize that much.

        P0rn is the biggest seller on the internet and family psychologists have expressed concern about its deleterious effect on young children. They end up being left unsupervised with computer access to material that is essentially damaging to their future ability to form normal relations. Sexual addictions are one of the fastest growing problems in Western culture and are causing much destruction in families.

        Thus, given our own culture’s degradation of and obsession with sexuality, an emphasis on Islam’s sexual perversions can backfire. Sexual obsessions could become a distraction to what ought to be the primary mission: pushing back against the destruction of the remaining good in our current situation.

        Unfortunately, this emphasis on Islam’s sexual compulsions could also unwittingly foster a further anti-gay environment. I know many gays feel that this exists already, but the increasingly perfervid witch hunts devoted to ferreting out those who believe differently than they is beginning to backfire. Even Andrew Sullivan is saying “enough”:

        Tne Hounding of a Heretic

        I agree with many of the writers you quote: if we begin with the ways that tribally-based family formations skew the normal development of children, it helps us all. Islam is a tribal system and that’s what has to change.

        • Remember “It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us”?

          It appears that aspirational presidential candidate Hillary Clinton might be propagandizing the validity of the tribal family model….

  35. Give this guy some recommendations.

    Bruce Bawer’s online artciles and website
    Harry’s Place
    Andrew Morgan (frequent commenter at Harry’s Place)

  36. And then, of course, there’s Brendan Eich, whose case demonstrates that harassment and persecution are multi-cultural.

  37. Muhammadism is against everything liberals believe in.
    If there are liberals who are opposed to Muhammadism and don’t want to be associated with conservatives, then they should start some websites of their own.

  38. Late to the discussion as usual the comments in the main miss the point of the original comment, and miss also the reason for the editor in publishing it. He would not have published it if it did not contain some truth

    In fact Gates of Vienna Editor has just published a comment which gets to the heart of the defence of the world against Islam and the way at the same time and in this context the world is moving into deepening capitalist crisis, which suggests that Islam is not the only threat to civilisation, but capitalism also is, and there may be a connection between Islam today and Imperialism in crisis. The comment concerns leadership on these levels. It is a complicated comment needing a complex answer. Where all of the comments above go wrong is that they do not treat this issue in an historical manner, and this includes that the left is also not treated in an historical manner. You will find no trace whatsoever of historical perspective in ANY of the comments above about socialism. The following are problems with the discourse:

    1. That the left as is presented today has been totally destroyed by Stalinism, and through Stalinism post 1967 the left as it then was bought into the Stalinist lies against Zionism. The left became a vehicle for Palestinian Arab lies, simple as that. There is one severe addition to that though, which is that the left were not alone, the US Governments down the way bought into the Palestinian lies (but not the American people because they are still rooted in the Great Revolution), and the governments of the EU, South America, Canada and Australia also bought into the Big Lie of our times. So in my opinión the left was merely adapting itself to the prevailing ideology
    2. That sections of the capitalist class itself use antisemitism and that the leadership of the anti Jihad movement is controlled by a few leadership foci, and from there they equate CONSCIOUSLY socialism with Islam. They do this day after day, week after week and year after year. Socialism equals Islam they keep hammering it out at their readers. This just as much as the “poor Palestinians” syndrome is the making of a meme in front of our eyes. Thus they see in the fight against Jihadism the chance to do down communism, note not Stalinism, they can be friends with Stalinism as happened under Roosevelt and recent books supported by GofV have borne this out
    Thus they work together, these anti Israeli leftists and these so called anti Jihadists, most unconsciously but some consciously.

    That in essence is what the comment said as I read it. The nature of Islam has been hidden by people like Karen Armstrong. The real nature of Islam has been opened up for us by people like Andrew Bostom. It has been done by really painstaking historical research. Sources have been uncovered that we did not know existed. For example the glorious multiculturalism of Cordoba as is pushed by Armstrong was and is a lie. Islam Spain was the most cruel and brutal example of any form of human society I know of

    When people here talk about the left they have not the first clue of what they are talking about because they have not done any historical research on the left, what it is and who they are etc.

    Even MC of Sderot has no understanding of the history of socialism and reduces his comment down to soup kitchens. he has no clue because he has not been educated to have any clue, or rather he has not bothered to do any research

    On this narrow issue of antisemitism was Karl Marx an antisemite as is presented by capitalist ideologues? Certainly not and I can prove it easily. Was Lenin an Antisemite? Not at all, in fact Lenin loved the Jews in Russia, so there! And was Leon Trotsky an antisemite? Bronstein never did other than accept his Jewishness and in the 1930s was the MAIN ideological fighter against Nazism and Stalinism, and as the Thirties went on he held the position that Jews had to set up their own independent state in Palestine and defend it from what he called “Mohammedanism” the term in those days often used for Islam, and also against Albion perfidy. It is all there is black and White why not read and quote!

    To understand Islam today you HAVE to understand it historically. Nothing else will do. To understand socialism or communism you have to understand it historically and also nothing else will do. But ideologically everybody on this site will be forced to do the opposite very like those Islamists who do not “do” history either.

    • Just to be clear, your points are unclear….

      The best that I can gather is that you are contending that the ‘founding’ communists originally loved Jews, but modern leftists love Muslims (because capitalism is fundamentally anti-Semitic as an expression of Westerners ‘true’ anti-Semitic feelings about Jews)? Thus, you seem to make an argument in favor of Marxism (i.e., socialism and communism) being the best form of government?

      My answer: NO!

  39. I live in Denmark, where 99% of the population are basically “liberal”. None the less, we have the same differences of opinion with regard to islam here as you have in the US.

    I suppose the main difference between the two groups of liberals in Denmark, is that the leftie liberals are marxists and the rightie liberals are not.

    To explain, I can offer myself as an example – I am an atheist through and through, which is why I not only reject all traditional religions but also reject all politicial religions. I actively despise marxism, not because its leftie but because its a religion in the same sense that Islam is a religion, and as a matter of fact, there are not that big a difference between marxism and islam.

    Do I despise all religions? Absolutely not. Though I do reject all religion, I also recognize that there are huge differences and that not all religions are equally damaging. Some are even relatively benign.

    I am an extreme rightwinger in the Danish context, in that I reject economic central planning, I reject economic equality as a worthwhile goal, I believe that equal opportunity should be the goal, not equal results, and I am not envious of those who do better than I.

    Besides from that, I absolutely and decidedly reject the idea of moral, cultural and ideological relativism. Not all religions have the moral right to exist, not all ideologies have the moral right to exist. And some cultures should definitely be shunned as the barbarism they truly are.

    This rejection of relativism in any form is what danish lefties find most objectionable about me.

    Do I consider myself intolerant? Absolutely not. Being tolerant means to tolerate other people even though they hold despicable opinions, but being tolerant does NOT mean to tolerate those wery same despicable opinions and it certainly does not mean to tolerate despicable opinions being acted out.

    As for Christians versus atheist, I dont really see a problem. As far as I, as a Danish rightwinger, can see, the main problem is not if american counterjihadists are Christians, but only wether they can accept the difference between religion and science and also wether they can accept atheists like myself as equals.

    I draw the Line at creationism. Creationism is not science and should certainly not be taught as an alternative to Darwins theories.

    As for abortion I think its perfectly ok to be against it for moral reasons, even though I do not necessarily agree, and so long as one does not claim to have any kind of eternal objective truth on ones own side. Abortion is in my opinion truly one of those question that has pros and cons no matter where you stand, sort of like the death penalty actually.

    I hope I havent offended anyone, that was certainly not my intention.

    • You might want to research the (shocking lack of scientific) evidence behind Darwin’s theories. Darwinism is a religion, too.

      • Thats the difference between science and religion. In science you have a theory, which you can use only if it is useful in explaining phenomena, and if new evidence comes to light you either develop the theory to encompass the new evidence if possible, and if not possible, you develop a new and better theory that explains the phenomena better than the old one.

        That is exactly why climate alarmism is a sort of religion. New evidence doesn’t make the believers doubt because they “know” the truth without having to ressort to such lowly activities as science.

        Climatealarmism, just like religion, is an activity that takes place within a closed circle where the final result can only ever be what the religion says it should be. This is exactly why islam has not and cannot develop to reflect the actual World as it exists today, but must forever be condemned to perpetuate the dead culture and beliefsystems of a long bygone era, because islam, more than any other religion, is trapped in its own circular reasoning. This I suspect, is also why fundamentalist Christians must insist on creationism, because if religion cant be falsified and thus cannot be proved scientifically then science and religion can only be united by bringing science into religions closed circle of reasoning. What fundamentalists however doesn’t seem to umderstand, is that in doing so, they hurt not only science but religion as well. Religion survives only if it either develops or hides the evidence. Bringing science into religions closed circle, is like bringing a small ray of light into darkness. Soner or later darkness goes away.

        • I find your understanding extremely lacking.

          You are regurgitating the religious dogma of Atheo-Scientism.

          Intelligent Design should be taught in science cirricula as it is a hypothesis, that can be proved or disproved. There is more evidence supporting it than String Theory, but nobody seems to be concerned about String Theory being taught in science classrooms.

          Evolution has turned into a Metaphysical Project, unfortunately. Atheo-Scientism creation myth making.

          Christians created science and developed it to it’s highest rigor.

          Science is based on a mountain of unproven and perhaps many unprovable assumptions. Science is useful, but it really can’t tell us much about our existence, other than via If (all these assumptions are true)-Then…

          It’s a useful tool. But the gullible are beginning to worship it as a way to Truth. It is not.

          Here is an interesting discussion I recommend surrounding the New Atheist Physicist Lawrence Krauss assertion that he provides an answer to the Something rather than Nothing conundrum. But more interesting is what Agnostic Physicist Marcelo Gleiser has to say about Science AS Religion.

          • I actually think that intelligent design is an attempt at religious development, and as such I applaud it.

            However, allthough I agree, that ID theory is a lot more, dare I say intelligent, than the so obviously idiotic oldfashioned creationism, I still think it would be catastrophic for both religion and science to teach ID theory in Biology classes, as if they belonged to the same spheres of intellectual endeavours.

            If ID theory should have any place in science, then surely it belongs to a philosophy course rather than Biology class.

            I realise of course that there are religious atheists and religious scientists who also find it difficult to separate their religious feelings from their rational endeavours. But allthough the Universe is truly a mysterious place, I see neither the need for nor the explanatory power of a theory of the first mover.

            The problem of the theory of the first mover, is of course that it doesn’t really explain anything, but simply pushes the problem of existences origin to a higher level of confusion.

            Not everything about our Universe can be known for sure at this point of our evolution, and to me at least, there are no need to understand everything, but then that might just be the difference between me and at least some of those of religious persuasion.

            The need for understanding can easily cause the mind to persuade itself of everything from the innocous to the monstrous.

          • The rot is wide and deep. The same people who corrupted the political, religious, cultural, and educational institutions of Western civilization have been hard at work corrupting ‘science’ (as a subset of education) to suit the goals of their Marxist atheist New World Order.

            From Survival of the Fakest (Dec 2000/Jan 2001) by Jonathan Wells in The American Spectator, reprinted with permission from the Discovery Institute:

            “According to the news media, only religious fundamentalists question Darwinian evolution. People who criticize Darwinism, we are told, want to bomb science back to the Stone Age and replace it with the Bible. The growing body of scientific evidence contradicting Darwinian claims is steadfastly ignored. When biochemist Michael Behe pointed out in The New York Times
            last year that the embryo “evidence” for evolution was faked, Harvard Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould admitted that he had known this for decades (as noted above) – but accused Behe of being a “creationist” for pointing it out.”

            “Now, although Behe supports the idea that some features of living things are best explained by intelligent design, he is not a “creationist” as that word is normally used. Behe is a molecular biologist whose scientific work has convinced him that Darwinian theory doesn’t conform to observation and experimental evidence. Why does Gould, who knows Haeckel’s drawings were faked, dismiss Behe as a creationist for criticizing them?”

            “I suspect that there’s an agenda other than pure science at work here. My evidence is the more or less explicit materialist message woven into many textbook accounts. Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology
            is characteristic of this, informing students that “it was Darwin’s theory of evolution,” together with Marx’s theory of history and Freud’s theory of human nature, “that provided a crucial plank to the platform of mechanism and materialism” that has since been “the stage of most Western thought.” One textbook quotes Gould, who openly declares that humans are not created, but are merely fortuitous twigs on a “contingent” (i.e. accidental) tree of life. Oxford Darwinist Richard Dawkins, though not writing in a textbook, puts it even more bluntly: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.””

            “These are obviously philosophical rather than sci-
            entific views. Futuyma, Gould, and Dawkins have a right to their philosophy. But they do not have the right to teach it as though it were science. In science, all theories – including Darwinian evolution – must be tested against the evidence.”


            Two more short articles:




          • I am not hostile to science in the least. I have post secondary education in the hard sciences…and am a life long amateur astronomer.

            ID does belong in Biology classes…where it resided for centuries, until very recently.

            There is much hostility to String Theory inside the scientific community as well, but no one is proposing to ban it’s discussion within the halls of academia and classrooms.

            Banning the discussion and teaching of ID in science classrooms actually thwarts the working of science as an open source project, and makes it a slave to ideology and political power….which has been widely condemned when Christians attempted the same on occasion.

          • As Tim Minchin observed, science changes its beliefs according to observation; religion denies observation in order not to have to change its beliefs.

            If we were intelligently designed, why, for example, do we have vestigial collarbones which break easily? They’re only useful to animals walking on all fours.

          • Well, whoever Tim Minchin is/was, he’s mistaken. The “science” of climate change, global warming, ice age, or whatever it’s called this year, dances to the tunes of funding and political correctness and fear for one’s reputation or position. Surely you have noticed the insertion of (i.e., contamination by) political correction into every sphere? Most of those scientists are observing their funding sources…

            Not only that, but the changes in scientific beliefs have been fought tooth and nail – e.g., the germ theory and post-partum infection and death caused by cigar-chomping doctors who harrumphed they be damned if they’d follow some silly old wives’ tale about invisible little goblins.

            In other words, scientific observation is always clouded by very human prejudice.

            Tim Minchin needs to stop adoring at the altar of Scientism and get out more.

            As for change in the religious sphere, that happens slowly because its dogmas are based (at least partly) on tradition and tradition is inherently conservative. It certainly wasn’t science that changed men’s minds re slavery, it was the exhortations of the abolitionists, many of them religious believers. The scientists, many of them eugenicists, were sure you could demonstrably prove by observation the inherent inferiority of the dark races.

            Our bodies have definitely changed over time as we adapted literally Ages ago to a changing environment. I haven’t a clue (or any real interest in resolving my ignorance) whether the precepts of Intelligent Design are accurate. I am willing to remain an agnostic and give those who do care deeply about the issue enough room to observe.

            The scientists in Nazi Germany, full believers in Darwin’s theories, would be on your side in this foray into science vs. religion. There, Godwin’s Law is in effect and the argument is over, right?

            Here’s the critical flaw in yours and Mr. Munchkin’s argument: the all-too-common categorical error of conflating/comparing science and religion. I suppose we have people like Bishop Berkley to blame for your misalignment, but y’all are still carrying it on past all sense.

            When it comes to Intelligent Design I’m an apathetic agnostic. I’d have to comprehend what they mean by their terms, “Intelligent” and “Design”. Those are heavy words and need to be unpacked. I’m too old and too impaired for such heavy lifting. Definitely I don’t have a dog in this fight so I won’t be showing up for the contest. Most likely I’ll be napping.

            Meanwhile, as long as those IDer’s and you agree on the basics about individual liberty, the rule of law, etc, Why can you not let them be?

          • Im not interested in debating ID as that is what should be going on inside science journals and university science departments….which is the point. Not that ID is correct or more evidence exists for it than Evolution (not that the 2 are mutually exclusive)…but rather that it is a legitimate hypothesis and realm of inquiry for science.

            Furthermore, Dympha is right, you are incorrectly stuck on a false dichotomy of Religion vs Science. Science is part of Christendom’s philosophical output. Created by Christians as part of their metaphysical worldview that the universe is ordered by a rational mind, that rational mind is found in man and man is made in God’s image. So to observe God’s creation and apply logic and rational thought to understanding (the universe) one can understand it’s creator better. This is what drove the creation and honing of Science in Christendom….and why science flourished there like nowhere else.

            And lastly, Science has assumptions that do not change with observations…for example the prosciption of Supernatural Causation.

            The whole project of Science is an attempt at Christian religious philosophical development, not just ID. You should applaud it.

    • Ah Mark,

      You speak of science how you wish it were – rather than how it is….

      As for religion, you would need to define your terms: which religion(s) do you defame, or do you lump all religions together?

      It is rather clear from the formal documentation that all religions are based on observations.

      It is our souls that are meant to be immortal rather than our bodies. 🙂

      The infirmity of our bodies serves several purposes: 1) to test our mettle – to see what morals we are made of and how we react when we are tested in this life, 2) to test the mettle and morals of those around us and how they react to mitigate our suffering WITHOUT simultaneously causing either the suffering of others (in an ‘ends justifies the means’ way) or their own self-enrichment (in a ‘we’re going to help the world while we steal billions for ourselves and our friends’ way), and 3) to lead to mortality so that humans will die in order to rise to a better physical and spiritual circumstance in heaven.

      • Wow, this thread is popular (if that’s the word?)

        Tim Minchin is an Australian singer/satirist; I recommend his beat poem “Storm”, on YouTube (the animated version).

        Science is indeed subject to the pressures of the prevailing orthodoxy, but usually gets there in the end. It was Galileo, not the Church, who was correct.

        • Galileo was trained and sustained by the Church…within it’s university system.

          But never the less, the run ins with the Church were few and far between. They were the exception and not the rule.

        • Hi Mark,

          I will reiterate here that, before you comment, you might at least google the topic of your choice and be sure that you fully understand the scope of the issue – instead of conveying subconscious propaganda that we have ALL been taught from birth – in this case, with the express purpose to defame the Catholic Church.

          “Since the Galileo case is one of the historical bludgeons that are used to beat on the Church — the other two being the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition — it is important that Catholics understand exactly what happened between the Church and that very great scientist. A close look at the facts puts to rout almost every aspect of the reigning Galileo legend.”

          “The Victorian biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, who had no brief for Catholicism, once examined the case and concluded that “the Church had the best of it.” The most striking point about the whole affair is that until Galileo forced the issue into the realm of theology, the Church had been a willing ombudsman for the new astronomy. It had encouraged the work of Copernicus and sheltered Kepler against the persecutions of Calvinists. Problems only arose when the debate went beyond the mere question of celestial mechanics. But here we need some historical background.”

          Summary: Galileo quite untactfully promoted the theory of Copernicanism as absolute fact a century BEFORE any one on earth was able to prove this theory as fact. And, in addition, some of Galileo’s related scientific theories were demonstrably wrong to scientists during Galileo’s lifetime.

          “The Catholic Church really has little to apologize for in its relations with science. Indeed, Stanley Jaki and others have argued that it was the metaphysical framework of medieval Catholicism which made modern science possible in the first place. In Jaki’s vivid phrase, science was “still-born” in every major culture — Greek, Hindu, Chinese — except the Christian West. It was the insistence on the rationality of God and His creation by St. Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic thinkers that paved the way for Galileo and Newton.”

          “So far as the teaching authority of the Church is concerned, it is striking how modern physics is playing catch-up with Catholic dogma. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council taught that the universe had a beginning in time — an idea which would have scandalized both an ancient Greek and a 19th century positivist, but which is now a commonplace of modern cosmology. Indeed, the more we learn about the universe, the closer we come to the ontological mysteries of Christian faith.”

          • Hi Egghead,

            Thanks for the link; I read it all- fascinating. And I stand corrected.

            I don’t think I’d have liked Galileo much!

          • Thanks, Mark! I like your style! 🙂

            I read it all last night and found it fascinating, too. You learn something new every day…. 🙂

            I often google historical topics and people with an eye toward trying to ascertain whether the topics or people might have been propagandized through the years in order to support a particular ideological slant.

            Last night, the entire time that I was reading about Galileo, I was thinking about the modern political and scientific push for global warming – recently rebranded as global climate change. Although it may seem ‘intuitive’ to exist – that is because it is actually a highly propagandized topic. Global climate change – with its carbon taxes – is mainly intended to be a vast wealth distribution scheme – ostensibly from rich Western nations to poor developing nations – but really from almost everyone on earth to rich politicians. It appears that much of the current ‘evidence’ for global climate change is literally fraudulent.

            I will say that google is known to ‘shade’ certain information in its search function.

            I often get information by listening to American Family Radio which is a Christian radio station that provides a contrasting viewpoint to the mainstream media which is really state-sponsored propaganda. Once I hear info on American Family Radio, I have names or websites that I can search for on google. 🙂

  40. Liberals left wingers will die if they don’t join us and defend what we defend. A cross line need to be made. There is only white and black, true and wrong. Gray will be absorb and become part of black. If we want to counterjihad then we need something to defend. In western world it is the Judeo-Christian value. This culture is something to defend. Liberals and atheism will finally die and submit to islam soon or later because they have nothing to defend. You can not counter something without something else to defend. If left wingers want to counter jihad with by suppress most of our point of view, then leave it. Let him fight alone. I doubt he can survive. Finally hewill join us or simply become the supporter of islam.

  41. I frankly despise the ideas promulgated in the article which our blog host shared.

    Mr. Sage Advice, I remember your side trying very, very hard to push ME (an Evangelical conservative) into an alliance with radical Islam by inventing that absurd term “Islamic fundamentalist” in 1979. Someone who should’ve known me a lot better back then even approached me for “insight” into the mind of Khomeini, since I was also a “fundamentalist”. I politely reminded her that I was a Christian of the Reformed persuasion, not an Ithna’ashariyya Shi’ite Muslim. Another accused me of being an ally of the Khomeini-ites because I also believe in heaven, hell, and a last judgment.

    Show me a Muslim who believes that Jesus is both fully God and fully Man, that his death on the cross was a necessity for our salvation, that he truly rose from the dead, that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the trustworthy, necessary, and sufficient rule of faith and practice (and these doctrines about the person and work of Jesus Christ and the nature of Scripture were what the early 20th century “fundamentals” were all about), and I’ll show you either a mortad and a candidate for Christian baptism or someone playing a semantic game by saying the true submission to God (Islam) is in fact traditional Christianity.

    Mr. Finger-wagging Glasses Boy, there is no secret tunnel linking Qom, Iran with any Christian college or seminary, in which the faculties of those institutions meet every Thanksgiving to share a dinner of live-stewed liberated lesbian while Meir Kahane (in occultation rather than dead) intones a brokhes. Your Fundamentalist International (even if the Universities of Georgetown and Chicago published a multi-volume study of the thing) is up there with the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion as misrepresentation.

    Your side is the one that pushes drivel such as _The Autobiography of Malcolm X_ on our teenagers in public school, along with the drivel that Islam somehow cultivates “dignity” in people. Yours is the one pushing the utter, indefensible 牛粪 about Islam being “tolerant” to our public school children (never mind laws regarding dhimmi status, the Almohads, the Armenian horrors, etc.); and never mind the soft spot your side has for Marxism-Leninism, that movement which killed and imprisoned more people in the name of supposed “social justice” and “progress” in the 20th century alone than suffered for the wrong kind of Christianity or none at all in the 15 centuries between the conversion of Constantine and Napoleon’s shutting down the Spanish Inquisition.

    So, you hate Christianity? You hate us so much that you made an alliance with Islam, calling it “multiculturalism”. You are the ones who spread the idea that those of us on this side are horrible “Islamophobes” and cry “tolerance, tolerance” when non-Muslims are being squeezed out of homelands where they’ve been present for millennia this very hour. I also note that your side publishes such Sturmer-esque drivel as “The Handmaid’s Tale”, accusing us of wanting to keep women illiterate, when my wife of decades comes from a land where the whole idea of female literacy was inculcated by Christian missionaries who’d be called “fundamentalists” today (including some of Margaret Attwood’s own Canadian countrymen).

    You’re pro-choice? Pro-LGBT? These are two of the things that are completely undermining the moral foundations of the West. These (along with radical feminism) have softened up our civilization for Islamic assault.

    And know what’s really ironic? I don’t accept that all-out inter-civilizational warfare is really necessary. God himself caught a lot of us missions-minded Christians flatfooted with the unprecedented numbers of Muslims who are inquiring about Christ and the Gospel. And we’re grateful that in our times, functioning indigenous Evangelical churches have cropped up in places like SE Turkey (and they’re not relict Syriacs or Armenians, either) and Algerian Kabylia, thanks to returning guest workers. Where I live, in a major metropolitan area of the USA, there’s a visible exodus from Islam among West African immigrants. If we can win against the jihad with the spiritual weapons of which Paul the Apostle speaks, why not? Surely this will be more pleasing to our God, who prefers repentance to the death of the sinner, than following in the footsteps of Chinghiz and Huleku. And you need to admit that Paul’s spiritual warfare’s a very different thing from Islam’s JIhad of the Sword!

    Maybe you have a dim awareness that the Muslims are going to enjoy chopping off your heads while enslaving your “wymyn” when we Christian are praying for your conversions rather than your deaths. Good for you. Waking up late is better than never waking up at all.

    Further, states “secede”, not “succeed”. Never again tell me that you’re the educated side while Ah’m jes’ the iggerent Ray-ud Nay-uck who cain’t say “jee-ee-zuz Chri-ust” in less than five syllables (and former Gov. Palin could, figuratively speaking, see Russia from her home. There are only five miles of water between Big and Little Diomede Islands, meaning there’s an international border between the USA and Russia).

    Ms. Dymphna, if possible, please send Uncle Kepha’s reaction to whoever shared the screed above.

  42. Some interesting, valid, solid points here. I’ve been thinking about the alienation of the left as a whole from the CJ movement, and think that it’s very harmful to the cause. In general, I suppose it’s a matter of “who bears the flag”, and in this case as a general rule, the political right has taken on that role. I agree that mixing issues such as abortion, gay marriage and global warming with the issue of CJ is counterproductive, but also think the credit should go to those movements who identified the Islamist threat and made it part of their agenda- true, a broad agenda that not all CJ activists agree upon. These political right movements have every right to view (as I think they do) all the aforementioned issues as linked, and to strive to promote their point of view on all subjects. As to myself, I can make a differentiation between the right’s messages on global warming, in which I do believe, and the right’s messages on Global Jihad in which I’m pretty sure. I’m not swallowing the frog- just avoid putting it in my mouth. As I’ve written above, some movements link different issues with the one of Global Jihad- some make sense and some don’t in my view.
    I think it is important though to look at the issue of Israel and be cognizant that it’s one of the main axis around which the Islamist scheme is being woven. Israel stands at the forefront of Jihad- it’s the west’s spear point in the battle between all that the west holds dear and the forces of subjugating Islam. That is why all the fuss, that’s why all the lies, all the media attention, the international focus… Buying the anti-Israel propaganda- however easy that’d be, and turning back on Israel is really falling into the hands of Islamist manipulations, and is equal to taking a step back in the struggle against Jihad. Ignore that connection, and you’re betraying the movement’s soldiers on the front, and the pole-bearer among them.
    Israel is far from perfect, but it’s right (as opposed to wrong, not as opposed to left). It is the first, and the last line of defense against darkness. “As it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the Holocaust will be upon us all” Eric Hoffer 1968.

  43. The commenter is fully correct. It’s all described and laid out in perfect detail two years ago in a set of very insightful essays over at The Brussels Journal entitled “Surviving Islamism … and Right/Left Politics: Churchill’s Principle” (see specifically Part III):

    In addition to the essayist, Peter Carl’s description of Breivik’s relation to Nazism, I think (judging from the comments here as well) all of us involved in the Counter-Jihad Movement would do well to take heed of the point of sticking to Peter Carl’s “Counter-Jihad Argument.”

    The reason this blog and many others, including Robert Spencer’s and Pamela Geller’s, as Carl points out, are labeled as “Nazi” and “Extreme-Right” and, in fact, why the entire movement is painted in a highly-damaging way as “right-wing” or “extreme right”, is because of the [behavior that I consider intellectually challenged] of continuing to harp on and on about “Leftists” and “Socialists” and the “Hard Left” instead of choosing and holding ourselves to the one argument that actually can be won:

    That is, that all of the people of the Right, Left, and Center who are U-N-C-O-N-V-I-N-C-E-D of the Counter-Jihad Argument (which Robert himself does well to describe as existing very much on both the Right and the Left), are focused on the protection of our “Common Freedoms” (e.g. HUMAN RIGHTS). They simply place emphasis on different points.

    To actually WIN the argument (if we actually WANT to do that), one must make the right argument to show the inconsistencies of their respective positions – not bash their political color or ideology. Bashing people’s ideological preferences, as Carl rightly points out, only accomplishes TWO things: it turns people off and makes them write off you and those like you AND they cause us all to be painted over and over again as “Right Wing” lunatics. Thus, feeding right into the hands of both Breivik-like Nazis and Islamo-facsists alike.

    To succeed, as Carl argues, whether we like it or not, we must do exactly as Churchill did. We must realize that this is an argument over informing the U-N-C-O-N-V-I-N-C-E-D of the Left, Right, and Center about our common concern for Carl’s “Common Freedoms”. As Carl rightly points out, if ANY person thinks they are going to both change “Liberals”, “Leftists”, or the “Hard Lefts” political ideology…and THEN also win the Counter-Jihad battle, well, that person would be sorely mistaken (see Carl’s essays Parts I and II (linked to above)).

    The commenter and, most especially, Peter Carl’s analysis is 100% correct. The more that leaders and followers in the Counter-Jihad Movement continue on with Right-Left ideological mud-slinging and bashing – instead of actually creating a space and openness for discussion and pointing out the COMMON ground of our Common Freedoms (which both Right and Left prize) – the more the Counter-Jihad will continue to alienate the UNCONVINCED of ALL political colors and the more the Counter-Jihad will be successfully painted as “Right-Wing”, “Extreme Right”, and “Far Right” – and, saddest of all, the more you, I, and the entire West can look forward to watching our countries go down in flames before the “wonders” of Islam.

    It’s all pretty simple. It’s not rocket science. It’s political psychology and human relations. Admitting this, however, first requires some real intellectual fortitude and honesty. If this adjustment can’t be made very quickly, as Carl very rightly points out, we will soon be on our way to REAL Nazis (like Brievik) having a run at these problems in Europe’s not to distant future.

    If you don’t agree, I can only suggest that you take the time to read through the essays. Well worth the time. And, just as he was with Breivik’s relationship with Nazis, Peter Carl is fully on the mark.

    • Leftists arent concerned about human rights. Which is your first mistake.

      They certainly use them to bash the Western Right, European Christendom, but they arent actually attached to them as something to defend, but rather see them as a club to beat European Christendom (Conservatives) with.

      The latest example is that the Homosexual Lobby is now going after donors lists to have people that support Traditional Marriage fired from gainful employment in our corporations. They couldnt care less about Freedom of Religion, (but they use it as a club/wedge with regards to non-Christians to bash over the head of Christendom)….they prefere Freedom From Religion, or the oppression of religion.

      There is no commonality to be found. One has to be a fool to believe Leftwing rhetoric as their actual agenda/goals.

    • One other question necessary to ask, “Was Churchill successful?”

      Phrased differently, did the policies of Churchill lead to the long term spiritual, physical, and political success of England and Europe (with England as its WWII defender)?

      It seems pretty clear that Stalin and the Marxists won WWII – and its aftermath – and the Marxists have purposely and willingly put the West squarely into their crosshairs by importing Muslims to consolidate Marxist power – and decimate Western and Christian people and ideas.

      I have ZERO interest in fighting and winning ANOTHER war for Marxists to control the world – although the Marxists will draft Western Christian young women and men to fight the coming war – with empty guns (!) no less – in order to finish the job of decimating Western and Christian people and ideas.

      Western Christians: Know thyself and know thy enemy!

      “The Suda, a 10th-century encyclopedia of Greek knowledge, says: “the proverb is applied to those whose boasts exceed what they are”,[2] and that “know thyself” is a warning to pay no attention to the opinion of the multitude.[3]”

      “So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
      If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
      If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.”

  44. Yonatan & TL:

    What would be your response to the following argument?

    The Left, through at least some of their social/moral/political positions, is paving the way for sharia. Case in point is gay marriage. Once you start tinkering with the traditional Judeo/Christian definition of marriage as 1 man/1 woman, where do you stop? The left might argue that gay marriage still preserves the notion of a union of 2 people; it’s just that now the union consists of 2 people of the same gender. But that’s a completely novel concept. Historically, outside of J/D cultures, I believe the only deviation from the traditional definition was polygamy, where, though the man had multiple wives, each marriage consisted of 1 man/1 woman. There’s historical precedent for polygamy. So once you have expanded the definition of legal marriage to encompass gay marriage, how could you possibly prevent muslims from arguing — and successfully, I would think, particularly as it’s so multi-cultural to embrace all non-traditional practices — that if gay marriage is legal, then polygamy should be legal as well? You can’t.

    • I’d suggest to anyone interested in actually WINNING this to take the time to read through The Brussels Journal essays by Peter Carl:

      As to EscapeVelocity:

      Look. Any person who is going to summarize the position of the “Left” in a broad – and ridiculous – statement that somehow “Leftists arent concerned about human rights,” really looks to be more interested in hyperbole than ever trying to understand how to make the proper argument to the UNCONVINCED (of the Right, Left, and Center) let alone actually WINNING the counter-jihad’s fight against Islamization.

      Think about it this way. Corporations, governments, politicians, etc. hire advertising, public relations firms, and lawyers to put together the most effective approaches to make arguments that help connect with the concerns, views, and preferences people have. The counter-jihad effort – and dealing with the UNCONVINCED of the Right, Left, and Center – is no different. In other words, you need to find the connecting point to the UNCONVINCED (of the Left, Right, and Center) if you want to WIN this idiotic situation that ALL political parties of every ideology have put us into. (Think, as Peter Carl writes, Ronald Reagan’s amnesty to 3+ million illegals…and Republican business leaders’ long-held desires to advance cheap labor, hold down wages, and beat unions. All, of course, while promoting Sharia and Islam (think Rick Perry’s halal law)).

      For you to state (as Peter Carl shows, in fact, to be the opposite) that 33% of the electorate (the “Left”) somehow does not at all care about human rights is more than ridiculous – and shows little evidence of a desire to be serious about and think through the reality of this pretty grim situation. Human rights is about all the “Left” is always thinking about. The same human rights you think about, only in ways that are just slightly different (but very much the same) as you do.

      The point is – you, we, and everyone else interested in the continued existence of the West need to understand how to actually put the argument into the right context that make the UNCONVINCED (including those on the “Left”) see that Islam is contrary to every human right EVERY Westerner values. That should be pretty easy because Islam is pretty grotesque and offers plenty of evidence of this every day. Doing so, however, takes some actual thought, concentration, knowledge, and effort. As opposed to mindlessly and continually attacking 1/3 of all of those who are UNCONVINCED and throwing out inanely broad and useless statements like, “Leftists arent concerned about human rights.”

      As to Egghead:

      No, not exactly. Marxists did not win World War II. Unless you’re writing from Russia, China, North Korea, or Eastern Europe. Our very regular, average grandparents won World War II. Also, as Peter Carl writes in his essays, to suggest that Marxists are or even have been the normative “Left” in Western Europe (let alone the US), is not supported by statistics or fact. Especially as to the US. Marxist parties in most Western European countries poll between 3-10% generally. Social Democrats generally make up 20-50%.

      That’s beside the point, however. As Peter Carl points out well, the assumption that Political Correctness is based in “Cultural Marxism” or “Marxism” of any other form that has somehow influenced the West is evidence of some missing knowledge of both history and intellectual history.

      Political Correctness in the West is simply, as Peter Carl writes, not a result of some “Marxist” conspiracy, but rather a result of Christianity’s Golden Rule implemented by people who want everyone to “be nice” (“tolerant”) to everyone within an ever increasingly secular Western society. In other words, it’s the Golden Rule without the all-important Christian STANDARD of judging IDEAS. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” (Judging the non-loving IDEAS and resultant actions of those who would do harm to her.) “Go and sin no more.” (Judging the IDEAS that led to her sin – and showing love to her by telling her to change those IDEAS).

      Judging IDEAS today is, incorrectly, seen simply as judging PEOPLE (or groups of people…think “Incitement of “hatred” laws”). Thus, Politically Correct people go nuts and claim that when a person judges peoples’ IDEAS we’re really judging the people. Not at all the case. (It’s an example of yet another Christian principle (“Judge not lest thou be judged”) that is spread so broadly across a historically Christian West that is, however, now fully secular and fully disconnected from any understanding of the very valuable standards of Christianity). So, Marxism? No, I don’t think so.

      And, if you want to go down the Marxist road, we once again come to back to Christianity. Marxism and the form of atheism/secularism it creates is an implementation of Christian standards without Christianity within a Western society that – not simplistically as some result of Marxism – has been turned into a secular extremist cultural sphere since 1850. This was done both by Marx/Engels, on the Left, and, as Peter Carl writes so well, Social Darwinists like Nietzsche, Hitler, and numerous others before and after them, on the Right. Thus, the goal, Right and Left, was to ERADICATE Christianity and uproot it for good from Western society.

      The key to understanding this point, generally, and Marxism, in particular, is something that most people do not know, but as Peter Carl writes well: Marx, Engels, and Marxists believed that the true Marxist position could not be had without first reading, understanding, and internalizing the writings of Ludwig Feuerbach, who wrote The Essence of Christianity. His goal was to distill the principles of Christianity, which he saw as highly valuable, into a fully atheist humanist social context. In other words, as Marx and Engels believed and as Feuerbach wrote, every aspect of God corresponds to some feature or need of human nature. They basically implemented Christian principles into their view of government and the economy while ridding society and the world of the religion (Christianity).

      The point: Politically Correct people who insist on “being nice” without standards are simply living out Christian principle of the Golden Rule – absent the valuable standards of Christianity and its requirement that we judge IDEAS but not people. If you don’t know these things, I’d argue that you look to develop better knowledge of “oneself”, the West, and your adversary. Peter Carl does quite well, I’d say.

      As to SyB:

      I’d say that, if we want to WIN, we best understand that it is not ONLY the Left that is paving the way for Sharia – it is the UNCONVINCED who are paving the way for Sharia. The UNCONVINCED of the Right, Left, and Center. Per the below, this includes key “Conservative” politicians.

      As Peter Carl writes in his first essay (and others), looking merely at the Right, the below “conservatives” are also doing all they can to ensure the advance of Islam and Sharia. Carl writes:

      “Up to now the focus of the Counter-Jihad’s approach has been very much centered on an attack against the “Left” (also interchangeably called “Leftists”, “Hard-Left”, “Liberals” (in the US), “Socialists”, “Left-wing”, “Progressives”, etc.) asserting unrealistically that it alone has somehow been responsible for or even that it is consciously part of some “collusion” or “conspiracy” to ensure Islamism’s advance in the West. Counter-Jihad bloggers Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have themselves shown that, in the United States alone, even the most conservative of Conservatives, including present Republican presidential candidates Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Ron Paul, Republican Governors Chris Christie (R-NJ) and Rick Scott (R-FL), and “king-makers” Grover Norquist and the Conservative Political Action Conference​ (CPAC) are like everyone else, due to Political Correctness or their own self-interests (or a combination thereof), just as likely to be a part of the problem of unwittingly advancing Islamist goals and agendas.”

      As to polygamy, as I wrote above, people (Right, Left, and Center) want to be nice to Muslims and see that we make accommodations for other religious groups – so now we need to do so for others. The gay marriage issue is seen as “being mean to gays” and “imposing Christianity on the world.” Hey, be nice! 😉 Because of the horrific results of World War II and the Holocaust, in the Western mind this has created an extremely strong demand to accommodate especially those not like us.

      The truth is that the UNCONVINCED (of the Left, Right, and Center) are responsible for moving Islamization and Sharia forward in the West. And we in the counter-jihad are also quite responsible. Because it is we who continue to exacerbate the ridiculous and extremely counter-productive Left-Right antagonisms here (even if it may feel so good). As Peter Carl writes, doing so only eternally paints this movement of being of, by, and for the “Extreme-Right” (and does much damage every time some idiotic neo-Nazi engages in violence) and, for these reasons, permanently alienates the UNCONVINCED – of the Right, Left, and Center. That, in turn, is only ensuring the marginalization of this movement and the defeat of the West to Islam and Islamization.

      The problem isn’t only the “Left”. The problem is the UNCONVINCED of the Right, Left, and Center. Thus, we would do well to read Peter Carl’s essays and actually start making our best efforts to make focused arguments that are based in, as Churchill saw, the “ideology” that holds all of the West together. What Peter Carl calls the “Common Freedoms”. That is the key. If any person believes they will EVER convince people on the “Left” quickly enough to become “Conservatives” – AND WIN the counter-jihad dilemma – you are living in a dreamworld and causing far more damage to this movement and the West than at all any good. Churchill was right. Peter Carl is fully right.

      My advice: I’d suggest taking the time to read the essays instead of speculating on what you think is there or not there. There are no short-cuts in this. Islam is the only winner otherwise.

      • I dont think you get it TL. The Left has convinced a gaggle of minority groups and women that the greatest threat to them is European Christendom.

        Nothing will change until Islam becomes a bigger threat to them, not based on propaganda, but in their everyday lives.

        The political Left wont change one iota, because their project is the destruction of European Christendom…by agitating minority groups as the New Proletariat as laid out by Cultural Marxist think tanks…which has been very successful for them.

        Until Islam becomes a clear and present danger to agitated minority groups, nothing will change. They will remain in the Marxist Totalitarian camp which doesnt give a [vulgar expression for something inconsequential] about human rights.

        What you need to understand is tribalism. These groups dont give a toss about human rights, they are concerned about their groups rights an interests.

        I know it’s hard to understand that Human Rights is not what people on the Left support, but rather their own groups rights and interests, and nobody elses.

      • BTW, I do agree that part of the problem is that that Eruopean Christendom is ridden with guilt and uncertainty, (which aids the Left in moving it’s agenda forward in Fundamentally Transforming the guilty and evil European Christian Order and Peoples).

        The primary issue to “solve” the impending doom is European Christendom getting “it’s Mojo back.” It’s will to exist. It’s will to power.

        PS – I am certainly well aware of the idea of Marxism as Christian heresy or secular Christianity.

        I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Even if I find them unconvincing.

        Ill check out the writings of Peter Carl.

        PPS – I dont think that it’s a one strategy situation either. I think multiple tactics and strategies should be pursued. A Diverse Counter-Jihad movement. This is how the Left has been so successful in pushing their agenda, BTW. They have the Good Cops, and the Bad Cops, the more militant and the less militant groups, Carrots and Sticks.

        At the end of the day, the only thing that is gonna say European Christendom is a good dose of first hand experience with Islam. And that means that prevention which would save much human misery, both Muslims and non-Muslim alike isnt in the cards. This will be a reactionary movement.

  45. Hi TL,

    Here is my response to your points in order. Please respond to me in a separate comment for now on – as that makes it easier for people to follow the response.

    From the Great Depression until today, Marxists have so thoroughly conquered the hearts and minds of Westerners that most Westerners fail to see their own inculcation and adoption of Marxist ideas. Someone on American Family Radio said that 1) after WWII, Eastern Europeans mentally understood that communism was wrong and was imposed upon them against their will, and that 2) current Americans fail to recognize that socialism is wrong (with socialism leading directly to communism) and eagerly accept, embrace, and promote socialism in the USA.

    As just one example of the Marxist coup, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now intends to ‘regulate’ the water of ALL American land – which will give the federal government ultimate control of ALL private and public property and ALL commerce – comporting with the Marxist United Nations’ goals of Agenda 21 to forcibly move the general populace of the world off of the open land and into the cities – with restricted mobility into open land.

    Marxism is indeed the inventor of political correctness:

    As the Marxists well know, judging ideas is judging people – especially if ideas are judged to be crimes. For example, it is only when the idea of rape is judged to be a crime that the rapist is judged to be a criminal. Ideas matter when people act upon ideas. If all Muslims simply ceased to ACT according to Sharia law, then Sharia Law would vanish. It is people who keep ideas alive – which is WHY Marxists 1) attempt to banish the thought (action), dissemination (action), and discussion (action) of ideas, and 2) defame, torture, and murder people who (re)present ideas that interfere with Marxism.

    If Marxists intended to create Christianity without Christ (as part of the triune God), then WHY would it be important to eradicate Christianity and Christ? The answer is that Marxists consciously REDEFINED Christianity in a new construction. Marxists also advertised a false promise to create heaven on earth in lieu of heaven in heaven.

    As one who ended his life in insanity, Nietzsche seems to indulge in immoral politics – rather than being ‘on the Right.’ “He [Nietzsche] calls for the introduction of a strict order of rank to ensure the domination of a governing aristocratic elite—his favoured social order: slavery.” That said, the World Socialist Web Site relays that Nietzsche’s ideas were very influential to Marxists: “In Germany his thought played a leading role in the post-war evolution of the influential Frankfurt School of Social Research.”

    Let’s examine whether Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) supported Marxist values. Hint: “One change suggested by Hitler concerned adding “Socialist” to the name of the party.”

    You have framed the problem and proposed the solution from a distinctly PM MC cultural Marxist non-Christian vantage point. A Christian should be concerned to follow and advertise Biblical principles to save his or her own soul and the souls of others – rather than to WIN any temporary earthly battle with Islam.

    Islam is simply ONE manifestation of SIN which needs to be fought by people within themselves on a spiritual level BEFORE it can be conquered in the physical plane.

    Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
    Romans 6:16, King James Bible

    I will read Peter Carl’s essays tonight and respond on this thread if you want to check back. 🙂

    • Hi TL,

      As regards the essays by Peter Carl, I had read at least some of them when they were published. 🙂

      I started an in depth response, but it would take me hours to read and respond to each essay. I will leave what I have, but my conclusion is that I differ from the author on quite a few points – although I greatly respect the author – and I would wager that he knows that. 🙂

      Essay I comments:

      Churchill: “Anyone in any party who falls below the level of the high spirit of national unity [-] which alone can give national salvation [-] is blameworthy.”

      Egghead: Only the triune God gives salvation.

      Churchill: “…we must put aside everything which hampers us in the speedy accomplishment of our common purpose.”

      Egghead: Common Purpose is the name of a particularly virulent Marxist organization in Britain. Hmmm.

      Peter Carl: “…speedily convince the broadest spectrum of these voters as soon possible….”

      Egghead: Convincing voters is irrelevant for two compelling reasons: 1) Marxists have already figured out how to cheat at the national level and in Democrat-run states and localities. The cheating is twofold: a) Marxists refuse to enforce election law except where it suits them (i.e., ineligible candidates are allowed to run for office), and b) Marxists literally manufacture votes (i.e., dead people, double votes, absentee ballots) and hide votes (i.e., military votes). 2) Marxists are actively changing the composition of the electorate via illegal immigration so who exactly are you going to ‘convince’ (i.e., people who are not even here yet?) and what is their political background (i.e., Marxist? Muslims?) and what language do they speak (i.e., are they listening to Univision or Al-Jazeera instead of mainstream news? How would you send a message to them)?

      Peter Carl: “…Islamism is based in promoting discrimination and violence against and subjugation of non-believers, lapsed believers, and even believers….”

      Egghead: I have had many conversations with Americans using this CJ argument. People are disbelieving. People usually know a ‘nice’ modern Western Muslim who, they are sure, is NOT like that and would NEVER do anything to hurt anyone. People think that the excesses of Islam only exist in the ‘Old Countries’ due to poverty caused by – you guessed it – white American policies – or inaction. People want to be happy and violently INSIST to be left alone in their happiness without hearing anymore about Islam. Fingers in ears – “La la la la la la la la la – Stop talking to me about that!”

      Peter Carl: “Churchill sought unity among all political ideologies to best face and defeat the Nazi menace during World War II.”

      Egghead: The situation with Islam is different. As far as I know, there was no political ideology importing Nazis into Britain that was asked to then ‘face and defeat the Nazi menace.’ In our case, Marxists purposely import our Islamic enemies into our countries in order to cause chaos designed to lead to a Marxist revolution.

      And on, and on, and on…. 🙂

  46. To Egghead and EscapeVelocity:

    Thanks for your kind, considered, and lengthy answers. Nice to see anyone actually thinking these things through in a serious manner. Check the page in the next day or so and I’ll respond as time permits. Thanks again.

    • Hi TL,

      For what it’s worth, I thought yours was one of the sanest comments I’ve seen here.

      Taking political viewpoints to be a continuum from Left to Right (with National Socialism properly placed towards the Left), it seems to me that the further one is towards either extreme, the more one’s perspective is distorted, so that if one is well to the Right, it becomes harder to tell the liberals/socialists (who believe in democracy) from the communists/Marxists (who don’t). This accounts for the frequent characterisation of, in particular, Europeans of the democratic Left as “communists”, by Americans, whose centre of gravity is more to the right than on this side of the Pond. Equally, some of those towards the far Left find it difficult (perhaps wilfully?) to distinguish democratic conservatives from those they brand as “fascists” (which they take to be a movement of the Right).

      One thing I’m as sure of as I can be: if Churchill could overcome his detestation of communist totalitarianism in order to assist our ungrateful and devious ally, Stalin, in the common battle against the more immediate threat of National Socialist totalitarianism, the varied posters, commenters and followers here should be able to make common cause against the major threat, even if the idiot whose offensive
      diatribe started this thread can’t see that.

    • Blimey Egghead, you still here? Not that I can speak!

      I’d seen the Swedish story, thanks. Maybe my choice of “sane” was inadequate; I meant that TL presents a well-reasoned case, without polemics.

      It’s also unreasonable to complain that he’s not writing from a Christian perspective, as he doesn’t appear to claim to be one. There are a few of us about, you know.

  47. As an epilog to this comment thread I would like to note an observation that comes up often at Gates of Vienna and appears yet again in this discussion thread. That is the observation that PCMC or Cultural Marxism is at its core a Christian heresy.

    While the notion of PCMC as Christianity-without-Christ might make sense to those of us who grew up in the Church and were taught the traditional faith, I imagine that to a younger generation, or for those unfamiliar with traditional Christian teachings, that this notion might not have any meaning. So the challenge is to explain in secular or non-religious terms what exactly this notion of a Christianity-without-a-Christ might be.

    The reason I find this question crucial is that in order to solve a problem, you first have to figure out what its source is. If PCMC is the problem, then what is its source? If PCMC is an aberrant form of Christian thinking, then the antidote to its effects will, of necessity, be a re-evaluation of Christianity’s basic faith traditions; in other words, a new reformation.

    I was motivated to respond on this point after reading through the links that the commenter TL provided to the Brussels Journal. The blog author, Peter Carl, got within striking distance with his focus on the Golden Rule as the source of memetic infection. But, because of his unfamiliarity with scripture, wasn’t able to finish the argument. So, for what it’s worth, I’ll try my hand at an answer.

    The best place to start is with the words of “The Greatest Commandment”, Matthew 22:36-40,

    36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    The point is that what we call the Golden Rule is actually secondary and subordinate to an external and absolute moral code. The reason this works out this way is that the Golden Rule by itself is only half of a rule; it needs to be anchored to something external before it can be applied across society in any practical manner.

    In secular terms, Christianity-without-a-Christ is the Golden Rule disconnected from any outside standard of right and wrong. In such a case, the only way to apply the Golden Rule is to fall back on one’s own feelings or the feelings of the people around us. In other words, it becomes the perfect tool for the emotional manipulation of people’s behaviors.

    That’s it in a nutshell, disconnect the Golden Rule from G-d’s rule, reconnect it to your own made-up standard of right and wrong, at which point, you can then talk, even otherwise good and honest, people into doing anything you want; even to the point of getting them to commit cultural suicide.

    • Great post Wildiris.

      I would like to add to it that the Golden Rule without anchor to Christianity is Moral and Cultural Relativism….or Nihilistic Hedonism. But the Heresy goes further than that….as the attempt is to create Heavan on Earth, the Perfection of Man….building temples to himself.

      What you refer to is a Morality of Sentimentality…as touched on by the French professor Chantol Delsol in Icarus Fallen. It derives from their being no absolutes, so feelings drive morality.

      And lastly…it fetishizes Anti-Dsicrimination….but only within the Western (European Christendom) Tradition…no others are held to the same standards.

      Neo-Con Evan Sayet discusses this Radical Indiscriminateness in this discussion…

      How Modern Liberals Think

Comments are closed.